mm 



A %. ' o , ^ <y . 




$5t ° ^ 



\ O, * o « .<. 



^ .0" 



s » 



^ N A 



BP - 



> " 4 <^ 



■ft * 7 



y..... 



V 



A 



If 



,0 o 




A N 



ORAL DEBATE 



ON THE 



COMING OF THE SON OF MAN, ENDLESS 
PUNISHMENT, AND UNIVERSAL 
SALVATION. 



HELD IN 

MILTON, IND., OCT. 26, 27, AND 28 , 1847. 

S 5 BETWEEN 

ERASMUS J^ANFORD, 

EDITOR OF THE WESTERN U S I V E RS A LI 9-T , 
AND 

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, 

EDITOR OF THE WESTERN REFORMER. 



<{ TO THE LAW AND THE TESTIMONY: IF THEY SPEAK NOT ACCORDING TO 
THE WORD, IT IS BECAUSE THERE IS NO LIGHT IN THEV." — Inaiah. 



INDIANAPOLIS: 

IK DIANA STATE JOURNAL STEAM- PRESS, PRINT. 

1 848. 



$4 



SUBJECTS OF DISCUSSION. 



I. 



DO THE SCRIPTURES TEACH THAT THE COMING OF CHRIST TO 
JUDGE THE WORLD IS FUTURE ? 

Mr. Franklin affirms and Mr. Manford denies. 



II. 

DO THE SCRIPTURES TEACH THE FINAL HOLINESS AND HAPPI- 
NESS OF ALL MANKIND 1 

Mr. Manford affirms and Mr. Franklin denies. 



III. 



DO THE SCRIPTURES TEACH THAT THOSE WHO DIE IN DISO- 
BEDIENCE TO THE GOSPEL WILL SUFFER ENDLESS PUNISHMENT ? 

Mr. Franklin affirms and Mr. Manford denies, 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



PROPOSITION I, 

BO THE SCRIPTURES TEACH THAT THE COMING- OF CHRIST TO 
JUDGE THE WORLD IS FUTURE? 

MR, FRANKLIN'S FIRST SPEECH, 

Mr. Chairman : 

I appear before you on this interesting occasion, in the 
defense of positions which have had the mightiest influence 
on the world of any propositions ever defended by mortal 
man. All philosophers, and men of commanding minds of 
almost all classes, have been sensible of the fact, that man 
is greatly under the influence of his hopes and fears \ hence 
the Christian's hope is spoken of as " an anchor to the soul, 
entering to that within the veil and is sure," while it is most 
constantly asserted in the Bible, that "the fear of the Lord is 
the beginning of wisdom," and "that in every nation he that 
feareth him, and worketh righteousness is accepted of him. 55 
He also places before man the infallible promises of a faith- 
ful Creator, inspires in him the only true hope, and, in the 
same way, he who places before man that which is really the 
terrors of the Lord, excites in him that fear which is the be- 
ginning of wisdom, 
I 



THEOLOGICAL DISCISSION. 



We come not here to-day to enquire what the will of man 
is, nor to enquire what kind of a penalty to fix to a law of 
human contrivance ; but we have assembled to enquire, like 
rational beings, what are the nature and character of that 
penalty which the self-existent and unoriginated Jehovah will 
be pleased to inflict on those who disobey his righteous law, 
and despise the blood of the everlasting covenant. We come 
not here to enquire what will be popular among men, or to 
enquire into the various worldly policies of our times ; but 
to examine the revelation of the Lord Jesus relative to the 
condition of man after death. 

Our propositions are such as all men are deeply interested 
in, and such as will cause every man to take his stand, either 
on the one hand or the other. All our propositions bear up- 
on one great question, viz : Can man do anything in this 
life that will effect his condition in any ivay after death 1 — 
The gentleman who is my opponent on this occasion, does 
not believe he can, while I most solemnly believe that man's 
happiness in the world to come, will depend upon his conduct 
in this life. While it will be his settled purpose, to maintain 
the doctrine, that disobedience to the gospel of Jesus Christ 
in this life, can do him no good in that world, it will be my 
settled purpose to show that our eternal weal or wo depends 
on our conduct in this life. 

I am aware that in taking this position, the atheist will 
stand just as much opposed to me as the gentleman who is 
my opponent at present. Indeed, it is his grand objection to 
the gospel of Christ, that it holds out a retributive state after 
death. 

The deist also stands directly opposed to me ; for, although 
he admits that there may be rewards and punishments after 
death, he does not admit that any person will be punished 
for disobeying the gospel of Jesus Christ in this life, or that 
any man will be made happy in the world to come, for obey- 
ing the gospel in this life. From both these parties I am to 
have no sympathies on the present occasion. This much of 
a disadvantage undoubtedly I will labor under in the present 
controversy. 

That the views we entertain on the subject we are to dis- 
cuss, in the presence of this people, will have a great influ- 
ence on our actions in this life, I do not suppose any person will 



Christ's second coming. 



3 



deny. My opponent will readily admit that he would act 
very differently from what he is about to act on this occasion, 
if he entertained the same views with myself, relative to the 
connection of our actions in this life, with our interests in 
the eternal state. And, while 1 have no right to impeach his 
motives, I cannot help believing, that he receives the impulse 
to go forward in this discussion, from very different consid- 
erations from those which prompted me to engage in the con- 
flict. If I can tell anything of the considerations which have 
actuated me, in entering into the present discussion, I must 
be permitted to say, that I most solemnly believe my posi- 
tions to be true, and that the positions of my opponent are 
not only untrue, but detrimental to the morals of the coun- 
try, the safety and happiness of man, in his relations to his 
family, the citizens of the community at large, and the civil 
government under which he lives, as well as his happiness in 
the world to come. Indeed, if it be admitted that man is a 
rational being at all, and that motives have anything to do in 
shaping his character, it cannot be denied that the decisions 
we are about to make on the great questions at issue between 
us, will have a mighty influence on our actions. 

Feeling sensible of the great effect this question is to have 
on the world, and believing, as I surely do, that the direct 
tendency of the doctrine which I shall oppose on this occa- 
sion, is pernicious and corrupting, I engage in the work of 
discussion, under the fullest conviction that I stand in de- 
fense of righteousnes, the happiness of man in this life and 
the one which is to come. What Mr. Manford's motives 
may be in defending his positions on this occasion, I have 
no right or disposition to prognosticate ; but what the legiti- 
mate tendency of his doctrine is, I have a right to show, as 
far as I may prove able. [Here Mr. Manford said, he would 
like to know what all that had to do with the proposition before 
us.] I wish to make a few introductory remarks, and of 
course Mr. M. is entitled to the same privilege. 

As it respects my opponent, I only have to say, that I do 
not know that I could better myself, had I been given choice 
of all the preachers and editors west of the mountains be- 
longing to his entire party. I could not perhaps have found 
one man whom I ought to prefer to him. He has been so 
frequently engaged in conflicts of this kind, that he, no doubt, 



4 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION, 



has stakes set down at most of the quick-sands and quag- 
mires into which he has previously fallen, so that he may 
avoid them at present. In one word I may say, he is 
looked to by the party in this country, as the pillar and sup- 
port of Universalism. I know of no other man among them 
in the West, of any considerable note, who will venture for- 
ward in a public discussion. Indeed I did not suppose that 
he would till of late. So little desire have the entire party 
had for debate, that I have had a challenge standing in print 
more than two years, which reads as follows : 

" A CHALLENGE. 

" At any suitable time and place, we will undertake to prove 
that the Universalists differ from the bible in the following 
particulars : They believe in a different God — a different 
Devil — a different Hell — a different Heaven — a different Sa- 
vior — a different Salvation — a different Sinner — a different 
Saint — a differen Sin — a different Righteousness — a different 
Gospel — a different Judgment — a different second coming of 
Christ and a different Resurrection of the Dead!" Ref 
Vol. 3; p. 141. 

Mr. M., however, is in the field and we are happy to be 
with him. 

In entering into battle as we now are, it is not unusual to 
reflect upon the consequences that might follow should I be 
defeated. What then would be my fate, if I should utterly 
fail, and it should happen to be proved that Mr. M. is right- 
that he is a true minister of Jesus Christ? And suppose I 
persist in opposing his doctrine all my life, and find in the 
end that it is true ; what will be the consequences ? Nothing, 
only that I shall be made holy and happy in heaven. As for 
all the hell I feel in conscience, or find in any other way in 
this life, for opposing the Gospel of Universalism, its hotest 
scorchings are quite a source of happiness to me, and even 
induces me to feel the most undoubted certainty that I am 
doing right. I am. therefore, in no danger let the matter 
turn out as it may. 

Before I shall proceed directly to the proposition first to 
be introduced, I wish to apprise the audience of some strange 



Christ's second coming. 



positions which I expect to see my opponent occupy before 
the discussion closes. I expect to see him forced virtually 
to deny the resurrection of the dead. If he does not deny 
that eternal life belongs to the future state, I shall be greatly 
disappointed. I shall be much mistaken if he does not at" 
tempt to bring heaven into this world. You may also ex- 
pect him to make immortality something to be enjoyed in 
this life. You need not be surprised if he should contend 
that the soul is the life or the breath. I expect to see him in 
many other singular predicaments which I cannot enumerate 
now, and that I shall place before him some passages of 
scripture which it will be hard to get him to acknowledge 
true. Of all these matters, however, you must judge when 
you have heard us. 

Without further ceremony I shall proceed to read our first 
proposition. It reads as follows : 

Do the Scriptures teach that the coming of Christ to judge 
the world is f uture ? 

Our proposition is very clear and unambiguous. It mat- 
ters not to us how many comings of Christ may have taken 
place ; nor is it material how many judgments may have 
taken place; for joining issue as we do, on this proposition, 
we both tacitly concede, that the scriptures speak emphati 
cally of the coming of Christ to judge the world ; and consej 
quently, the question between us is not, whether the scrip= 
tures speak of the coming of Christ to judge the world, but 
whether that event is future. 1 say that event is future — Mr, 
M. says it is not. Here lies the question. 

You will readily see from this, that if my friend on this 
occasion should find some passages which speak of a com- 
ing of Christ which is past, it will by no means settle 
the question ; for there might be a coming of Christ past, 
and the coming to judge the world future. In the the same 
way, he may refer to some judgments which are past, spoken 
of in the scriptures ; but this by no means proves that there 
is no " judgment to come." The whole argument will be 
worth nothing to him, unless it shall be made appear that 
there is no-coming to judge the world future. . 

If then I shall present one passage that puts the coming of 
Christ to judge the world future, I shall have gained this 
question ; for if forty other passages can be found speaking 



6 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



of other comings of Christ and other judgments, they would 
not in the least militate against my proof text. If my friend 
will remember this, it will save him the trouble of quoting 
the words, " Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel 
till the Son of man be come" — There be some standing 
here that shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man 
coming in his kingdom " — " The Lord judgeth in the earth,'* 
&c. &c. This being the case, we shall avoid, I hope, much 
pointless verbiage which is usually dragged into controver- 
sies of this kind. 

Without detaining you more lengthily, in defining our 
proposition, I shall proceed to sustain my affimative proposi- 
tion from the infallible oracle of God. In doing this I shall 
make my first appeal to the language of the apostle Peter, 
which reads as follows : 

u There shall come in the last days, scoffers walking after 
their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his 
coming 1 for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue 
as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this 
they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the 
heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water 
and in the water : whereby the world that then was, being over- 
flowed with water perished ; but the heavens and the earth 
which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved 
unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungod- 
ly men. 2 Pet. 3 : 3-7. 

This passage seems to have been written for this special 
occasion, and could not have been worded much more suita- 
ble to my purpose, had the apostle written it for my special 
advantage. The apostle in the first place offered a rebuke 
to the scoffers of the last days, who, being willingly ignorant, 
enquire, " Where is the promise of his coming 1 " My op- 
ponent on this occasion has the honor to continue this enqui- 
ry, and is now anxiously waiting forme to show him a prom- 
ise of the coming of Christ to judge the world. This I hope 
to be able to do to his fullest satisfaction. He cannot escape 
from the passage under consideration, by saying it refers to 
any other corning of Christ than the coming to judge the 
world. Nor can he say that the judgment spoken of in this 
passage, was any judgment and perdition of ungodly men 
which occured daily, as that upon which he displays his ora- 



Christ's second coming. 



7 



torical powers before the people sometimes, for in this case 
there is no reserving unto the day of judgment. Nor can it 
mean the hell of conscience, for its hottest scorchings are 
immediately after the commission of the crime. 

The coming of Christ, the day of judgment and perdition 
of ungodly men here spoken of, were in the future, and 
some considerable time in the future when the apostle wrote, 
as is evident from several considerations. This letter was 
written in the year 64 of the Christian era, and six years be- 
fore the destruction of Jerusalem. The last days of the 
Jewish dispensation had gone by some 33 years, as most 
men calculate ; and therefore the apostle did not mean, there 
shall come scoffers in the days of the Jewish polity, for its 
last days were gone. But my friend may say as some have 
said, that the Jewish polity lasted till the destruction of Je- 
rusalem. This will not at all suit the language, for he speaks 
of it as an event farther off than six years. 

What goes to show that Peter could not have referred to 
any coming of Christ soon enough to be included in the last 
days of the Jewish polity, or any other days between that 
time and the present, is the fact, that it would contradict a plain 
statement which he made on another occasion, and a very 
clear and unequivocal statement of Paul. Speaking of the 
second coming of Christ, Peter said, "and he shall send Je- 
sus Christ, which before was preached unto you ; whom the 
heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, 
which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy proph- 
ets since the world began." Acts 3 : 20, 21. Now I would 
ask the gentleman, who is my opponent, if this restitution of 
all things is not future ? He is bound to answer this in the 
affirmative, for I have no doubt it is one of his " one hun- 
dred and fifty reasons for believing in universal salvation." 
Well, then, I would ask him, if the apostle told the truth, 
when he said, " whom the heaven must receive until the times 
of restitution of all things ? " If the gentleman relies up- 
on these words as true, he cannot tell of any coming of 
Christ between the time when Peter uttered these words and 
the restitution of all things, for he says, "the heaven must 
receive Jesus until the times of restitution of all things" 

I must however call your attention to the language of Paul 
touching this point. Speaking of the coming of Christ, that 



8 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



apostle says, that the Thessalonians should not be " soon 
shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by letter, 
as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no 
man deceieve you by any means, for that day shall not come, 
except there come a falling away first." 2 Thes. 2 : 2, 3. 
This epistle also was written about six years before the de- 
struction of Jerusalem, and therefore, if any coming of 
Christ had been expected by the apostle, when that event 
took place, it would have been no deception to have preach- 
ed that the day of Christ was at hand. Had a Universalist 
been there, he would have contended, as my opponent is 
about to do, that the day of Christ was at hand. I think 1 
am justified in saying this, for even at this day, with the 
printed language of Paul before him, forbiding it, he now 
stands ready to contend that the day of Christ was at hand. 
Paul however commands us, not to let him " deceive us by 
any means, for," he says, " that day shall not come except the 
apostacy come first" Now unless my friend can prove that 
what Paul positively declared u shall not come" did come y 
he can find no coming of Christ at the destruction of Jeru- 
salum. 

I maintain then, that as there was no coming of Christ be- 
tween the time when Peter uttered the words, " There shall 
come in the last days scoffers," &c, and the coming of the 
apostacy, and the restitution or all things, that he could not 
have referred to the last days of the Jewish polity, but must 
have referred to the last days of the Christian dispensation. 
Against this my friend will find there is no rising up. 

It is not only a fact that the apostacy was to make its ap- 
pearance before the coming of Christ, but the coming of 
Christ was to be the end of it. This is evident from the 
following: " And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom 
the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and 
shall destroy >vith the brightness of his coming." 2 Thes. 
2 : 8. This man of sin — this mystery of iniquity was not 
only to come before the coming of Christ, but the coming of 
Christ was to be the end of it. Now can any man in his 
senses, believe that the coming of Christ was not at hand 
when Paul wrote this letter, and at the same time believe 
that event then to have been only six years off ? And can 
he believe in addition to this, that the man of sin — the apos- 
tacy, did come in six years, and fully developed himself, and 



Christ's second coming. 9 

was put to an end by the coming of Christ to destroy the 
Jews? This is certainly too much. 

But as I wish to get my proof before my friend as soon as 
possible, that he may make the best defense his cause admits, 
1 hasten to call his attention to another passage, which reads 
as follows : 44 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, 
and shall be led away captive into all nations : and Jerusa- 
lem shall be trodden down of the gentiles until the time of 
the gentiles be fulfilled. " Luke 21 : 24. The expression 
" they shall fall by the edge of the sword," evidently refers 
to the destruction of Jerusalem, but the expression " they 
shall be led away captive into all nations," certainly extends 
a long way3 beyond that event. The words also, " Jerusa- 
lem shall be trodden down of the gentiles until the times of 
the gentiles shall be fulfilled," extend up to the present time 
beyond all dispute. 

Well, what follows after the Jewish captivity, and the 
treading down of Jerusalem by the gentiles ? The Savior 
answers : " and there shall be signs in the sun, and in the 
moon, and in the stars ; and upon the earth distress of na- 
tions, with perplexity ; the sea and the waves roaring ; men's 
hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things 
that are coming on the earth ; for the powers of the heavens 
shall be shaken. And then shall they seethe Son of man 
coming in a cloud, with power and great glory." Verses 
25, 26, 27. 

Now notice the order of these events : 1 . The destruction 
of Jerusalem — "they shall fall by the edge of the sword." 
2. The captivity of the Jewish nation. 3. The treading 
down of Jerusalem by the gentiles. 4. The fufilling of the 
times of the gentiles. 5. The signs in the heavens. 6. The 
perplexity of the nations of the earth. 7. The appearing of 
the Son of man in heaven. My friend will not only try to 
have the seventh event here mentioned to take place at the 
same time with the first, but he will try to make it appear 
that they are precisely the same thing. 

To this passage I invite his special attention. And if the 
captivity of the Jewish nation stands between the destruction 
of Jerusalem and the coming of Christ, I hope he will show 
us how he has the two occurrences at the same time, 

[Time expired,] 



10 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



MR, MANFORD'S FIRST REPLY. 

Messrs. Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : 

Before examining Mr. Franklin's proof texts, I will 
notice some of his introductory remarks. He speaks cor- 
rectly, when he says that man is influenced by hope and 
fear, and that the Bible informs us, that " the fear of the 
Lord is the beginning of wisdom." There is a vast differ- 
ence, however, between the " fear of the Lord," and 
the fear of an endless hell. The one is filial, reveren- 
tial fear, and the other is slavish fear ; the one purifies 
the heart and the other corrupts it. The first is the begin- 
ning of wisdom, of liberty, of salvation, while the other 
is the beginning of folly, of slavery, of damnation. "Fear 
the Lord," is a command of Heaven ; " fear an unending 
hell," is a mandate of creeds. The one should be observed, 
and all who do regard it, " are accepted of God;" the 
other should not be heeded, and those who do keep it, 
receive no praise of God, although they may of men. 

He says, " it will be my settled purpose to show that our 
eternal weal or wo, depends on our conduct in this life." If 
he is right, well might Dr. Watts exclaim, 

"Great God; on what a slender thready 
Hang everlasting things !" 

But if I am not greatly mistaken, it will be Mr. Franklin's 
" settled purpose" to convince us, that man's eternal " con- 
dition after death," depends on the state of his mind in 
the hour of death, and not on his conduct through life. 
According to his theory, a man may spend almost his entire 
life in the grossest wickedness without receiving scarcely 
any punishment, and by repentence and baptism, just before 
death, go immediately to heaven, and occupy as high a seat 
in glory, as St. John; and yet he says he believes our 
eternal weal or wo, depends on our conduct through life ! ! 
He believes no such a thing. I will here inform Mr, Frank- 
lin, that although I do not assent to the monstrous proposi- 
tion, that our eternal all depends on our weak and imperfect 



Christ's second coming. 



11 



efforts during the few moments we spend on earth, yet I do 
believe that abusing or improving our talents in this world, 
will effect, in some degree, our future condition. I believe 
in different 44 degrees of glory " hereafter. 

He tells us that he will not have the sympathies of atheists 
and deists, in this controversy. Why not? He admits that 
both of those classes believe the Bible teaches the doctrine 
of endless torments. In that respect, he and they are 
44 birds of one feather." He also admits, that deists believe 
with him, that our eternal 44 weal or wo depends on our con- 
duct in this life." Here again, Mr. F. and the deists are ju3t 
alike. But then, he informs you that I agree with deists 
and atheists in rejecting the gospel, because it teaches 
endless punishment. Mr. Franklin is certainly 44 a gentle- 
man and a scholar." I reject endless torment, because it is 
no part of the gospel. The gospel is truth, but the dogma of 
ceaseless vengeance is a falsehood — so I think. 

He says, if he 44 believed *as I do, he would act very 
different from what he now does." Does he mean that 
he would become a 44 vagabond in the earth ?" He does not 
wish to impugn my motives, oh no ; and yet he tells you 
that he cannot help believing I am engaged in this discussion 
from very different considerations from those which influ- 
ence him. And then he very complacently informs you 
that he stands up in defence of his positions, because he 
believes them true, and because they have much to do with 
human happiness. Yes, these are the considerations which 
have induced him to enter into this discussion, but he cannot 
believe that I am influenced by any such considerations. 
Mr. F. would do well to remember that 44 charity thinketh no 
evil." 

He thinks the doctrine of Universal Salvation has a very 
vicious tendency, and that of endless torment, a very holy 
influence ! I solemnly believe the reverse is true, and 
when he tries to sustain his assertion, I will offer some 
44 strong reasons " for my opinion. 

That Challenge. He will 44 undertake to prove that Uni- 
versalists differ from the Bible " in a great many particulars. 
I think I can prove they differ from that book in several 
items he does not specify. Universalists like other folks, I 
believe, are composed of flesh and bones, while the Bible is 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



made of leather, paper, paste, and ink. Universalists can 
walk, run, eat, drink, and sleep ; the Bible can do neither. 
Why, Mr. Franklin, you had better revise that challenge. 
But if he means that Universalism differs from the Bible, 
and he " will undertake to prove " it, I will inform him, that 
he will find it an easier task to undertake to do so than 
to accomplish his work. I might undertake to demolish the 
throne of God, but it would be a vain effort. 

My friend most evidently tries to raise a dust, by adverti- 
sing you of some " strange positions,'' which he expects me 
to occupy before this investigation closes. He seems to 
think that if he can succeed in arousing a prejudice against 
me, he will get along much better in his arguments. But I 
shall be compelled to deprive him of this advantage, as 
much as he appears to desire it, by telling my audience that 
I do not expect to occupy one of those " strange positions." 

Do the Scriptures teach that Jhe coming of Christ to judge 
the world is future ? Mr. Franklin has been careful to tell 
you of several matters, it will do me no good to prove. 

1. He says, if I should find a passage which speaks of a 
coming of Christ which is past, it would by no means settle 
the question, unless I could show it was a 44 coming to judge 
the world." Neither, I answer, will it avail anything for 
my friend to find a passage, which speaks of a coming 
of Christ yet future, unless he can show it will be a 44 com- 
ming to judge the world." 2. He says I may refer to judg- 
ments, which are past, but this will not prove there is 
no judgment to come. This is true, and I say in return, 
that if my friend should refer to judgments yet to come, 
it would not be proving there is no judgment past. 3. 
He say3, if he is able to present one passage, (he seems 
to promise a scarcity,) which places the coming of Christ to 
judge the world in the future, then he will have gained 
his point. Not so fast my friend. You must not only prove 
that the coming of Christ to judge was future when the 
Bible was written, but that it is future now. I admit that it 
was future then, but deny that it is future now, and right here 
we join issue. 

Mr. Franklin wishes to save me the trouble of quoting 
such passages as the following : 44 Ye shall not have gone 
over the cities of Israel, till the Son of Man be come." 



Christ's second coming, 



13 



"The Lord judgeth in the earth" 44 There be some stand- 
ing here that shall not taste of death till they see the Son of Man 
coming in his kingdom." He was very careful not to 
tell you, my friends, that the coming spoken of in the 
last quotation, was a coming 44 to reward every man accor- 
ding to his works." And as judging must of necessity 
precede rewarding, the coming, just spoken of, was a com- 
ing to judgment. The above passages then do not trouble 
me, but my friend; and hence he tries to persuade me 
not to use them. 

I now come to Mr. Franklin's first proof text, 2. Pet., 
3: 7. He tells us that this passage seems to have been 
written for this very occasion, and for his especial advantage! 
Such expressions are used to bolster up a strained and 
far-fetched interpretation of scripture, and for nothing else. 
He says also that when this epistle was written, the 44 last 
days" of the Jewish dispensation had gone by 33 years; 
and consequently, the Apostle did not mean that the scoffers, 
spoken of in the text, were to come in the 44 last days " 
of the Jewish polity, for its 44 last days" were past. But 
I call fox proof of all this. According to Dr. Lander, the 
epistle to the Hebrews was written within the year 63, and 
in the [8 chap, and 13 verse, Paul, speaking of the Jew- 
ish Covenant, says, 44 Now that which decayeth and waxeih 
old is ready to vanish, away" On this verse, Dr. Clark 
makes these remarks : 44 The Apostle, therefore, intimates 
that the old Covenant was j ast about to be abolished." See 
also, Dr. Doddridge, to the same import. But notwithstand- 
ing all these authorities, Mr. F. contends that the Jewish cove- 
nant had vanished away some 30 years before ! ! That the 44 last 
days" mean the last days of the Jewish dispensation, is evident 
from several passages. Peter, the author of the passage 
before us, informed the multitude when they supposed some 
of the people were drunk, that 44 This is that which was 
spoken by the prophet Joel, 44 And it shall come to pass 
in the last days, saith God, I will pour out my spirit upon all 
flesh."— Acts, 2: 16, 17. This is to the point. Thelastdays— 
the same spoken of in the epistle — were in Peter's life-time. 

In 1 John, 2: 18, it is said, 44 Little children, it is the last 
time, and as ye have heard that Anti-Christ shall come, even 
now there are many Anti-Christs, (scoffers,) whereby we 



14 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



know it is the last time." I have now proved that the 
last days spoken of by Peter, were in the life-time of Peter 
and John, and at the conclusion of the Jewish dispensation. 
Well, Christ was to come in judgment in the last days, 
consequently, that coming is past, not future, as Mr. F. 
thinks. 

The second proof text, Acts 3: 21, is irrelevant. It 
proves that there is yet a coming of Christ, but says noth- 
ing of a judgment. [t proves also that Christ has not come 
in person since he ascended into heaven, in the presence of 
his disciples, but does not prove that the coming of Christ 
in judgment, is yet future. 

Mr. Franklin's third proof text is 2 Thes. 2 : 3. In order 
to make any kind of an argument, he is compelled to date 
the epistle as late as possible. But suppose I were to give 
him here all he asks, which I by no means have to do, would 
he gain anything? No, for he admits himself that it was 
written before the dispersion of the Jewish nation. But he 
is wrong concerning the date of the epistle. According to 
the best authorities it was written in the year 54, which was 
16 years before that calamity befell the ancient people of 
God. But from this very passage I derive a strong proof 
that the " day of Christ" was not far in the future, at the 
time it was written. If it had been a doctrine of the early 
church that Christ was not to come until the close of the 
Christian dispensation, hiid had the Thessalonians been ac- 
quainted with this doctrine, the Apostle need not have told them 
that they should not "be troubled." My friend knows that 
the most prominent doctrine of his church is that Christ is 
to come to judge the world at the end of the Christian dispen- 
sation — at the " restitution of all things." The most igno- 
rant member of his church is well acquainted with this doc- 
trine. Now he will have to take the ground that the Thes- 
salonians were ignorant of this doctrine, or that they thought 
the Christian dispensation, which was hardly commenced, 
was about to close ! ! 

2. " Be not shaken in mind or troubled, neither by spirit, nor 
by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of the 
Lord is at hand." They should not be soon, immediately 
troubled about that event, inasmuch as it would be at least 
16 yeara before it would occur. It was not at hand, hence 



christ's second coming. 



15 



they should not then be troubled about it; but he intimates 
that the time would come when they might with propriety be 
troubled about that event. But if it is to take place at the 
resurrection, will the Thessalonians, while in heaven, be 
troubled about it ? " Can any man in his senses," says my 
friend, " believe that the coming of Christ was not at hand, 
when Paul wrote this epistle, and at the same time believe 
that event then to have been six (he should have said six- 
teen) years off ? " I answer, can any man in his senses, be- 
lieve an event " is at hand," and at the same time believe that 
it is sixteen years in the future 1 

3. " Let no man deceive you by any means ; for that day 
shall not come except there come a falling away first, and 
that man of Sin be revealed, the Son of perdition who oppo- 
seth and exalteth" (in the present tense) " himself above all 
that is called God, or that is worshipped ; so that he as God 
siiteth " (still the present tense) " in the temple of God, 
shewing himself that he is God." Mr. Franklin says that 
the "Man of Sin," and the "mystery of iniquity," were to 
appear before the coming of Christ. Well, the Apostle says 
" the mystery of iniquity doth already work." He says 
further that the coming of Christ was to end the "iniquity." 
What this last expression has to do with proving his propo- 
sition, I am unable to determine. These are some of my 
reasons for believing that the coming of Christ in judgment, 
spoken of in Thessalonians, is not a future event. I have 
others which shall appear indue time. 

I now come to Mr. Franklin's fourth proof text. Luke 21. 
Here again he is at variance with almost every orthodox 
Commentator ! He says the expression " they shall be led 
away captive into all nations," certainly extends a " long 
ways " beyond the destruction. There is not one word 
in the expression that would lead to such a conclusion. The 
Jews could be " led away" immediately after the destruc- 
tion. Does he believe that this leading away did not take 
place until a long time after the destruction of Jerusalem ? 
But perhaps he will say the expression " led away captive 
into all nations" implies a great length of time. Well, sup- 
pose I grant this. Still Mr. Franklin believes that Jerusa- 
lem was "trodden down of the gentiles " at, and immediate- 
ly after the destruction. But I will notice the order of events 



16 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



as they are arranged by my friend, more particularly. He 
has, 1st, the destruction of Jerusalem, "they shall fall by 
the edge of the sword " — 2d the captivity of the Jewish na- 
tion — 3d the treading down of Jerusalem by the gentiles — 
4th the fulfilling of the times of the gentiles — 5th the signs 
in the heavens — 6th the perplexity of the nations of the 
earth — 7th the appearing of the Son of man in heaven. — 
What straining after a long order of events ! The second 
event took place at the time of the first. • This he dare not 
deny. The third event took place at the same time of the 
second; and the fourth event is merely the ending of the 
third. So four of the gentleman's events are no advance 
in point of time from the first ! So much for more than 
half of this long order ! The 5th and 6th events, must 
certainly be co-existent, for the " perplexity of the nations" 
would of course be at the same time of the " signs in the 
heavens." This is spoiling one more of my friend's " or- 
ders ! " But let me see if the 7th order is not embraced in 
the 5th and 6th. " Then shall they see the Son of man,'' 
that is, when " there shall be signs in the sun, and in the 
moon and stars." Where now are the seven orders of 
events ! Mr. Franklin must do better than this. There 
now remains of his long order of events, but the first and 
the fifth, and these of course become the first and second. — 
The first, the destruction of Jerusalem; and second, the 
signs in the heavens. Between these two events he wishes 
to throw some 2000 years. But I shall prove beyond all 
controversy that the second event follows " immediately af- 
ter" the first. The 25th verse of this chapter of Luke is 
exactly parallel, as Mr. Franklin himself will admit, with the 
29th verse of Matt. 24, which reads as follows : " Immedi- 
ately after the tribulation of those days," etc. What days ? 
Why, the days of the destruction of Jerusalem, and of the 
leading away into captivity. Where I ask again is my 
friend's long series of events ? 

Most orthodox Commentators interpret the 21st chap, of 
Luke as referring to the destruction of the Jewish polity and 
nation ; and I should not forget to state that our Savior, af- 
ter mentioning my friend's long order of events, says, " This 
generation shall not pass away till all be fulfilled." 

I have now carefully examined Mr. F.'s proofs that Christ 



CHRIST*S SECOND COMING. 



17 



is yet to come in judgment, and it must be evident to every 
one that the scriptures clearly teach, that that is not a future 
event, but that the judgment commenced a long time ago. — 
Jesus when he was on earth informed men that his judgment 
would begin in a short time. Read Matt. 16 : 27, 28. " For 
the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father, with 
his angels ; and then shall he reward every man according 
to his work. Verily I say unto you, there be some standing 
here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of 
man coming in his kingdom." Here Jesus affirms that there 
were some standing by him, who would not die till he would 
come in judgment, and yet Mr. F., 1800 years after this sol- 
emn declaration, is contending that that event has not occur- 
red ! ! Is Mr. F. wiser than Jesus Christ]] I believe that Christ 
spoke the truth, and that my friend is laboring under a great 
mistake. 

Christ's coming in judgment, and'to raise the dead, are two 
distinct events. The first was not a personal coming, but a 
coming in his kingdom, in glory, in judgment, and that of 
course took place in the establishment of Christianity among 
the nations of the earth. Christ then exhibited himself to the 
world in his kingdom, glory, and judgments, and he is now do- 
ing the same. And as the resurrection of the dead, by the pow- 
er and grace of heaven, is a distinct, important and remarkable 
event, it is called a coming of Christ. And I wish it ever to 
be remembered, that throughout the Bible, whenever the 
coming of Christ in judgment, in his kingdom, is spoken of, 
nothing is said about the resurrection of the dead ; and when- 
ever his coming in the resurrection is spoken of, nothing is 
said about judgment. And throughout the Bible also, the be- 
ginning of judgment is connected with the introduction of 
Christ's reign, and the resurrection with the close of that 
reign. These facts stand directly opposed to my friend's 
whole theory. 

I ask Mr. F, what will be the use of a judgment at the end of 
time 7 Will it be a Court of Error 1 He believes that when a 
man dies, if he happens to be in the right state of mind at 
that particular juncture, he will go to heaven. And he be- 
lieves also that if a man should die in sin, no matter how 
righteous he had lived, he will go to hell. The man that 
goes to hell must have been judged, for surely God would not 
% 



IB 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



send him there without a trial— a judgment. And so with 
the man who goes to heaven, he must first be judged, my 
friend would say. Still he has a future judgment, and all 
hell is to be disembodied of its contents, and heaven de- 
populated to attend this great trial. Where, in the name of 
reason and common sense, is the use of this judgment ? Is 
it to rectify mistakes that were made in the first judgment ? 
If so, perhaps there will be mistakes made in the second 
judgment, or whatever you may please to term it, and many 
who are now in hell may get into heaven, and many that are 
now in heaven may be thrust into hell. And perhaps there 
may a perfect change take place in the inhabitants of the 
two places ; those in hell going to heaven, and those in hea- 
ven going to hell. My friend need not say that I have spo- 
ken irreverently, or turned sacred subjects into ridicule. I 
have only showed some of the inconsistencies of his faith. 

I hope Mr. Franklin in in his next speech will meet my 
objections to his theory and interpretations of the Bible, fair- 
ly and candidly, and especially do I hope that he will point 
out all those places, if any, where I have not answered his 
arguments, or endeavored to do so; for I wish to notice ev- 
ery single argument that my friend may advance. And I 
shall expect the same kind of treatment from him. In this 
way we may elicit truth. I hope also that the very best spirit 
may be maintained throughout the entire debate, and that 
nothing may occur to mar the feelings of any one. Let ev- 
ery one here assembled, calmly and dispassionately weigh 
every argument, and unbiassed by prejudice or preposses- 
sion, decide in favor of Truth, [Time expired.] 



Christ's second coming. 



19 



MR. FRANKLIN'S SECOND SPEECH. 



Mr. Chairman : 

Before I proceed with my affirmative arguments, it will 
be necessary for me to pay some attention to the gentleman's 
reply, He was pleased to fayor you with a distinction be- 
tween " filial, reverential fear," and the fear of hell. His 
distinction is not in the bible. The language of Jesus is : 
" Fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and bod v in 
hell." 

He appears displeased that our eternal weal or wo should 
depend on our conduct in this life. I cannot see why he 
should have such an abhorrance of this doctrine, Is his 
conduct so reprehensible that he thinks it would endanger 
his salvation? But he further informed you, that, if he was 
not much mistaken, it would be my settled purpose to prove 
that it depends on the state of the mind at death and not on 
our conduct. He is much mistaken then ; for I believe no 
such thing. But on the contrary I believe that the Lord 
will take vengeance on them that know not God and obey 
not the gospel. But you may guess my surprise, to hear Mr, 
Manford say, 64 1 do believe that abusing or improving our 
talents in this world, will effect in some degree our future 
situation, I believe in different degrees of glory hereafter," 
I did not expect this soon, in his very first speech, to hear 
him denounce the leading feature— the grand distinguishing 
characteristic of his doctrine. It is conceded then, thus ear- 
ly in this discussion, that a finite creature, in a finite state, 
can do something that will effect an infinite state. This I 
expected to be called upon to prove, but the necessity of this 
is now superseded by the concession of my friend. But to 
show his brethren that he is not mistaken, I will refer to a 
passage of scripture. Since my friend has referred the re- 
sults of improving or neglecting to improve our talents to the 
coming world, let me call your attention to the Savior's par- 
able of the talents, Matt. 25. After showing, as Mr Manford 
says he believes, that those who improve their talents will 



20 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



be invited into the joys of their Lord, the Savior says of the 
man who failed to improve his talent, " Cast ye the unprofit- 
able servant into outer darkness : there shall be weeping and 
gnashing of teeth. " V. 25,30. If then by the abuse of our 
talents in this life, we may lessen the degrees of happiness 
in the world to come, as the gentleman admits, why may we 
not lessen these degrees of happiness until it will not be hap- 
piness at all, but misery ? The gentleman will repent of this 
concession fot many years to come, especially as it is to go 
to the world in a printed book. 

Mr. Manford wishes me to tell him why I will not have 
the sympathies of atheists and deists. One principal reason 
is, that they do not consider my position calculated to destroy 
the religion of Jesus Christ out of the world. They do con- 
sider his position well calculated to accomplish that object, 
and therefore will sympathise with him, and are anxious for 
his success. 

It appears that my friend cannot see how I could act differ- 
ently from what I do, unless I would be a " vagabond in the 
earth." Well he acts differently from myself; is he there- 
fore a " vagabond," to apply his own refined language to 
himself? Surely not. 

From Mr. M.'s little witicism, in specifying other differ- 
ences between the Bible and Universal ists, besides those men- 
tioned in my challenge, I suppose he admits those specified 
by me. He may as w T ell at least, for they will abundantly 
appear as we shall proceed. 

In defining my proposition, I stated that a reference to any 
judgment that is past, will not prove that there is no judg- 
ment to come ; and the gentleman very adroitly responds, 
that " should I refer to a judgment to come, it would not be 
proving there is no judgment past." I grant it, but it would 
be proving my proposition, for it calls for a judgment to 
come. 

I was amused to see my friend approach my proof texts. 
He did it with as much cautiousness as if he had expected 
every step to fall into a pit. His remarks upon these impor- 
tant passages of the word of God were perfectly non-commit- 
tal. The day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men — 
the melting of the elements with fervent heat — the burning 
up of the earth mi all things therein^the passing way of 



Christ's seconb coming. 



n 



the heavens with a great noise, are certainly matters of suffi- 
cient importance to have been specially recorded in history, 
if indeed they are past. But did he refer you to the time 
and the place where these wonderful things occurred ? Not 
at all. He had not even enough nerve to say, that it refer- 
red to the destruction of Jerusalem, although he gave some 
such intimations. He can tell you that the coming of Christ 
to judge the world is past, and that he has proved it ; but 
token did it pass ? That is the question. I wish him to tell 
what that judgment was. What was the perdition of ungod- 
ly men ? Will he ever be so good as to tell I He wishes 
to know what good a judgment after death will do. I should 
be pleased to know what good the judgment of which he 
speaks will do. He is the last man who should start any 
such enquiry. After preaching, writing and debating about 
it for years, he cannot tell us what his judgment is ! ! ! What 
good does a judgment do in this world, when even the preach- 
ers cannot tell what it is ? He wishes to know if the judg- 
ment after death is to correct mistakes that occurred in a 
previous judgment. I suppose from this question, that the 
object of his judgment is to determine who are the guilty. — 
But I presume the Judge spoken of in the Bible, knows who 
are the guilty before judgment, and consequently has not ap- 
pointed a day in which to judge the world, to ascertain who 
are the guilty, but to pass a final sentence upon all. 

What disposition did he make of the " scoffers of the last 
days." None at all, except it be to try to prove that " last 
days " related to the close of the Jewish polity. That is, he 
tried to show, that when Peter, only six years before Jeru- 
salem was destroyed, said, " there shall come scoffers in the 
last days," he meant that they should come during that six 
years. But did he show that any scoffers did come, during 
that period, " saying where is the promise of his coming ?" 
Surely not. It is true, he referred to the words of Joel, Acts 2, 
and to the words of John, " it is the last time," and said these 
passages referred to the same time, but on this he gave no 
proof only his assertion. The exact fulfilment of a predic- 
tion, is an infallible evidence of the time to which it? refer- 
red. There was no set of men, during the six years in ques- 
tion, who said, " where is the promise of his coming," but 
we have just such a set of men in our day, and if we had 



22 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



no other evidence, this would be sufficient to show that Peter 
referred to these times. 

The gentleman made quite a display over the words. " is 
waxed old and ready to vanish away." His object as you 
recollect, was to prove that the old covenant was still in 
force, and consequently that Peter referred to the last days 
of it. " But in 2 Cor. 3: 11, speaking of the old covenant, 
Paul calls it, " that which ivas done away" In the 13th 
verse he calls it, " that which is abolished." Kom. 10: 4, 
the same Apostle said, (year 60)'," Christ is the end of the 
law." Col. 2 : 14, he says, " Blotting out the hand-writing of 
ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and 
took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross." Now my 
friend informed you, that I would not get him into any of the 
predicaments mentioned in my first speech. I told you that 
I expected to introduce passages of scripture which he would 
not acknowledge true. I now ask Mr. M. the question : 
Do you believe that when Paul wrote these several expres- 
sions, the old covenant " icas done away " — " abolished" — 
" blotted out " — " took out of the way" and that " Christ ims 
the end of the law? " If you do, the old institution, you 
must admit, was at an end, truly "ready to vanish away." 
Will any man in his right mind, believe the old covenant 
was in force after it was " done away," " abolished," "blot- 
ted out," " took out of the way," " nailed to the cross," and 
" Christ was the end of the law? " Just as soon as he con- 
fesses his belief of these passages of scripture, he confesses 
that the Jewish covenant was at an end, and the apostle Peter, 
writing after the end of the Jewish institution, referred for- 
ward to the " scoffers of the last days," which could not pos- 
sibly have been the last days of the Jewish polity, for it was 
gone. 

But in this same passage, the apostle says, " the heavens 
and the earth which are now, by the same word, are kept in 
store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment, and 
perdition of ungodly men." Now did he mean that the heav- 
ens and the earth which are now are reserved unto the de- 
struction of Jerusalem ? Tf he did, he did not mean that 
they were reserved unto the hell of conscience. And if he 
meant that they were reserved unto the fire of the hell of 
conscience, he did not mean the destruction of Jerusalem, 



Christ's SECOND coming. 



23 



and consequently it is no difference when Peter wrote. I do 
not believe my friend dare take any position on this point. — • 
Will he explain this branch of the " glorious doctrine of Uni- 
versalism ? " 

The gentleman's reply on the passage in Thess. calls for 
but little attention. He says, " can any man in his senses 
believe an event is 6 at hand,' and at the same time believe it 
is sixteen years in the future 1" I answer most emphatical- 
ly, that if it be an event that has been spoken of more than 
fifteen hundred years, as was the case with the destruction of 
Jerusalem, he can, and that no man of truth and sound un- 
derstanding could say any thing else. When the first com- 
ing of Christ was within sixteen years, all believers consic}; 
ered it at hand, and any man who would have taught that it 
was not at hand would have been regarded as a false teacher. 
But Paul regarded that man as a deceiver, who should per- 
vert his letter or spirit so as to say the day of Christ was at 
hand ; for, says he, *' that day shall not come, except there 
come a falling away first." This falling away is unequivo- 
cally declared to be the Roman apostacy by all great prot- 
estants. Christ was to destroy this man of sin with the spirit 
of his mouth and the brightness of his coming." Was the 
time at hand when the man of sin should be destroyed ? 
If so, how does it happen that the man of sin is not yet de- 
stroyed ? 

The gentleman thinks that if it had been a common doc- 
trine among the early Christians, that Christ would not corne 
till the end of the Christian dispensation , the Thessaionians 
would have understood it. This is worth nothing, for even 
those who were in error on the subject, and contended that 
the coming of Christ was at hand, may have thought the 
end of the Christian dispensation equally as near at hand. 

My second proof text, Acts 3 : 21, the gentleman says "is 
not relevant." But in the next breath he says of the same 
passage : " It proves also that Christ has not come in person 
since he ascended to heaven." Well, that is just what I 
quoted it to prove. That much is then established, and my 
friend has sanctioned it. 

I have been trying to understand my friend from his first 
speech, and as far as he has taken any position, it amounts 
to this ; Christ has never appeared personally since he as- 



24 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



cended to heaven, but at the resurrection he will appear 
personally. But he has appeared already in judgment and 
in glory. Let us then see what conclusions we can arrive at 
from these statements. 

1. It is rather a ridiculous idea to me, to make a figurative 
appearing, such as the slaughter of a million and a half of 
Jews, (if it be even a figurative appearing) the 44 glorious 
appearing," and rob the personal appearing at the resur- 
rection of the dead of its glory ! ! But if my friend can 
get round a coming judgment no other way, and the fear of 
hell seems to press him, he will put the glory of Jesus in 
the past tense, to provide a way of escape. But as the gen- 
tleman has decided that the appearing of Christ in glory is 
past, I would be pleased to call his attention to the following 
passage : "For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath 
appeared unto all men, teaching us, that denying ungodli- 
ness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously 
and godly in this present world, looking for that blessed hope, 
and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior 
Jesus Christ." Tit. 2 : 11. Is this " glorious appearing " 
past ? If the gentleman says, it is, he gives up one of his 
favorite proof texts. 44 When Christ who is our life shall 
appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory " Col. 
3:4. Is this appearing of Christ in glory past? Surely 
not. 

But I must enquire whether it is the personal appearing 
that is visible or the figurative appearing, if there be any 
such a thing. If he shall say, that the appearing 44 in glory 
and judgment," is the one at which 44 every eye shall see 
him," I should be pleased to know how they could see him, 
if he did not appear in person ! But I now proceed to show 
that the personal appearing, the glorious appearing, and his 
appearing in judgment are all the same appearing, or in oth- 
er words that the appearing in glory and judgment will be 
personal. 44 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of 
man in heaven : and then shall all the tribes of the earth 
mourn, and they shall see the son of man coming in the 
clouds of heaven, with power and great glory." Now my 
friend has admitted that there has been no personal coming 
of Christ since he ascended to heaven. But in this passage 
we are told, that 44 all the tribes of the earth shall mourn, 



Christ's second coming. 25 

and they shall see the son of man coming in the clouds of 
heaven." Now I ask the gentleman if he believes these 
words of the Savior? Did he tell the truth when he said, 
"all the tribes of the earth shall mourn, and they shall see 
the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven ? " If he 
says, he believes this passage of scripture his position is 
yielded up, at once ; for there has been no coming of Christ 
up to this time, at which " all the tribes of the earth mourn- 
ed" nor has there been any coming of Christ, at which all 
the tribes of the earth saw the Son of man coming in the 
clouds of heaven, nor can all the tribes of the earth ever 
see the son of man coming in the clouds of heaven at any 
other coming but a personal one. To this I shall hold the 
gentleman throughout this day. 

"Behold he cometh with clouds and every eye shall see 
him, and they also which pierced him, and all kindreds of 
the earth shall wail because of him." As in the passage just 
noticed so in this, he is represented as coming in the clouds 
of heaven ; and while it is said in the former passage, u all 
the tribes of the earth shall mourn," in this it is said " all 
the kindred of the earth shall wail." And in this passage it 
is said, " every eye shall see him" Can every eye see him 
at any but a personal coming ? Surely not. 

"And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud 
with power and great glory." Luke 21 : 27. I showed in 
my first speech, that in the preceding verses of this chapter, 
the Savior places the captivity of the Jewish nation, the 
treading down of Jerusalem by the gentiles and the fulfilment 
of the times of the gentiles, between the destruction of Je- 
rusalem and the coming of Christ ; and that neither of these 
was yet terminated, and consequently that the coming here 
spoken of must be yet future. But now I am helped to an- 
other argument by my friend's statement, which is true, that 
the coming of Christ at the resurrection of the dead will be 
personal. This passage most unquestionably refers to the 
same personal coming, for he says, "then shall they see 

THE SON OF MAN COMJNG- IN A CLOUD," which COuld not be 

the case at any but a personal coming. 

My friend has now admitted that this coming is the same 
as that of the 24th of Matt., and that it was after the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem, Well, if it was only one week after, it 



£6 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



was not the destruction of Jerusalem ; therefore the gentle- 
man has cut himself off from the old stamping ground. Now 
he is in a beautiful predicament truly ! The coming of 
Christ after the destruction of Jerusalem ! Well, when was 
it I and what was it ? 

" For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even 
so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with 
him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, 
that we which are alive, and remain unto the coining of the 
Lord, shall not prevent them which are asleep, for the lord 
himself shall decend from heaven with a shout, with the 
voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God : and the 
dead in Christ shall rise first : then we which are alive and 
remain, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, 
to meet the Lord in the air, and so shall we ever be with the 
Lord." 1 Thess. 4: 14, 17. This is a personal coming, 
for the " Lord himself" is the same as the Lord in person. 
Not only so, but he is to decend from heaven icith a shout, 
which shows that it must be personal. In this passage, as 
in the 15th of 1 Cor., the coming of Christ and the resur- 
rection of the dead are connected, and the gentleman admits 
the coming at the resurrection to be personal. Now after 
writing to the Thessalonians as we have just read, which, 
as we have clearly seen, refers to a personal coming of 
Christ, and a resurrection of the dead, the apostle in a se- 
cond letter addresses them as follows : " And to you who 
are troubled, rest with us, (in the grave) when the Lord Je- 
sus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 
in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, 
acid obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ : who shall 
be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence 
of the Lord and the glory oi his power ; when he comes 
to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in them that 
believe." 2 Thess. 1 : 10. Now I ask if it is not as evi- 
dent as it can be, that the apostle spoke of the same coming 
in the second letter that he did in the first? Well, the gen- 
tleman admits that the coming at the resurrection is person- 
al, and we saw as clear as anything can be, that the coming 
spoken of in the first letter was to be at the resurrection of 
the dead, and that he told them in the second letter most 
pointedly, that "that day should not come unless the apos- 



Christ's second coming. 



27 



tacy come first, ' ? and that he gave not the slightest indication 
that he alluded to any other coming than he had mentioned 
in the first letter. Not only so, but the coming spoken of in the 
second letter, was to be when he should come to be glorified 
in his saints. Certainly he is not glorified with his saints in 
this world ! His promise is, " if we suffer with him we shall 
be glorified together." It was then the coming in glory — in 
person, at the resurrection, and in flaming fire, he speaks of 
in both letters. From this my friend cannot escape. If I 
were in his place, I would not try ; but give it up, and take 
a position that could be defended. 

I cordially join him in the hope that nothing unkind shall 
occur [Time eo:pired.~\ 



MR. MAN FORD'S SECOND REPLY. 



Gentlemen and Ladies : 

Mr. Franklin began his last with the remark, that there is 
no difference between the fear of the Lord and the fear 
of hell— an endless hell. I admit that he is correct if 
his views of God and hell are true, The hell of partialism 
is thus described ~ 

" Wide was the place, 

And deep as wide, and ruinous as deep. 

Beneath, I saw a lake of burning fire, 

With tempest tost perpetually, and still, 

The waves of fiery darkness 'gainst the rocks 

Of dark damnation broke, and music made 

Of melancholy sort, and over head 

And all around, wind wared with wind, storm howleci 

To storm, and lightening, forked lightening, crossed, 

And thunder, muttering sound 

Of sullen wrath." 



28 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



Another thus describes the supposed future home of 
nearly all mankind : — 

" A furnace, formidable, deep, and wide, 
O'er boiling with a blue sulphurious tide ; 
Where clouds of murky smoke and lurid flame, 
Burst out in volumes o'er the dark domain. " 

This is the hell of partialism ; it was built according 
to that system by the Almighty for the sole purpose of im- 
prisoning and tormenting nearly all his offspring, world 
without end. In the words of Dr. Watts, 

14 The breath of God — His angry breath 

Supplies and fans the fire, 
There sinners taste the second death, 

And would but can't expire." 

The god of partialism is the first, the last, the all, in this 
infernal business of tormenting and burning. He built this 
hell, " supplies and fans the fire with his angry breath," 
and although the helpless victims of his wrath and ven- 
geance would gladly be annihilated, he will not let them 
" expire,'' as he intends to glut his vengeance on them 
eternally. I admit there is no difference between the fear of 
a god of this character and the fear of an endless hell. 
But the God of the Bible, of heaven, and of earth, is as un- 
like this monster of cruelty, as two opposite characters can 
possibly be. 

Mr. F. thinks I shall repent for many years to come, for 
saying I believe " in different degrees of glory hereafter.' ' 
I do not expect ever to repent of uttering that truthful 
and reasonable sentiment. He misrepresents our denomina- 
tion when he says we do not believe in different degrees 
of glory in the spirit- world. All the dead will be raised, 
immortal, glorious, heavenly — like the angels, and enjoy all 
they are capable of enjoying. Are there not different 
" degrees of glory " among the angels of heaven ? All 
admit there are. We are to be like the angels. I admit 
that if this body of corruption and all the evil associations of 
this world go with the spirit into the eternal world we might 
sink deeper and deeper in corruption, till we should be depri- 
ved of all happiness. The " parable of the talent," to which 
he refers, does not relate to the future state, as is admitted by 



chkist's second coming. 



29 



most of Commentators. Bishop Pearce says, " The moral 
of this parable is, that Jesus would reward or punish chris- 
tians according to their behavior under the means of grace 
afforded them : and that from every one would be required 
in proportion to what had been given to him. And this 
distinction, made between them, was to be made at the time 
when the Jewish state was to be destroyed." He com- 
plains because I did not prove from history, that Paul and 
Peter and Christ uttered truth, when they spoke of judgment, 
of the elements melting, and of the coming of Christ ! I 
did not suppose that was necessary ; T supposed their words 
were all sufficient, and I am still of that opinion. As Christ 
taught he would come in judgment during the life-time of 
some who were living when he was on the earth, I believe 
that event took place when he said it would, and exactly 
as Christ intended. And when Paul and Peter speak of the 
very same coming, and of many remarkable events connec- 
ted therewith, I believe the coming and all the events, have 
taken place precisely as they intended. No higher authority 
is needed. My friend seems to question the veracity of 
Christ and the Apostles. Although they solemnly affirmed 
that the coming in judgment would soon occur, he wants me 
to prove from history, that that event did take place ! ! 

Mr. Franklin has not seen proper to inform us why 
he supposes God will judge men twice in the future world — 
when they die and after the resurrection. All of us would 
like some light on that subject. He dare not deny that 
he believes in two judgments after death. He tells us that the 
object of the last judgment will be to " pass sentence on all." 
But is not every one judged and sentenced as soon as they die, 
and consigned to hell or heaven ? Why then re-judge 
them? We want Mr. F. to be clear on this subject. He 
informs you that I cannot tell why I believe God judges 
men. I will try to tell you in the language of the Bible. 
" When thy judgments are in the earth the people learn 
righteousness" He judges men to learn them righteousness. 
" Zion shall be redeemed by judgment." — Isa 1: 27. "Be- 
hold, happy is the man whom God correcteth ; therefore, 
despise not the chastening of the Almighty, for he maketh 
sore and bindeth up, he woundeth, and his hands make 
whole ,"-*-Job 5; 17, 18, We learn from these passages. 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



that the great design of judgment is to humble the sinner ; 
turn him from his evil ways, and make an end of transgres- 
sion. The apostle Paul expresses the whole in a single 
phrase- — " that we may he partakers of his holiness" — 
Heb. 12: 8-11. 

Mr. Franklin yet contends, that the scoffers spoken of by 
Peter, were to appear on the earth at the end of the Chris- 
tian dispensation, and he intimates that I am one of the 
" scoffers." He must be a Millerite, and had better have 
his assension robe ready. If he will read the third chapter 
of Peter, he will find that the scoffers were living when that 
epistle was written. " For this, they (the scoffers) willingly 
are ignorant of"-~-verse 5 — not shall be thousands of years 
hence.- Now this one expression refutes all my friend's Mil- 
lerism. The scoffers were living in the days of Peter, and sol 
am not intended, or any one now living or shall live hereafter. 
It was a prediction of the holy prophets according to Peter, 
that there should come in the last days, scoffers, and as the 
scoffers had come, consequently, the last days were in 
Peter's life-time. In my last speech I produced this very 
prophecy that Peter refers to, and we saw that Peter reiter- 
ated it on the day of Pentecost, and said it was then being 
fulfilled ; so according to the Apostle's sermon and epistle, 
the " last days " were in the apostolic age. Well, Christ 
was to come in judgment in the last days, and hence we have 
again demonstrated that that coming has taken place. lie 
repeats the assertion, that the last days spoken of by Peter, 
were at the close of the Christian dispensation. If he is cor- 
rect, the Christian dispensation is ended, yea, came to its end 
before it commenced ! You recollect, I proved in my last speech 
that the old dispensation in Peter's day, was "ready to vanish 
away," and hence it was in existence ; but he has made 
no reply to my proof, And you likewise recollect that 
I also showed that this was the opinion of learned Comment- 
ators of his school, Although he has made a great blunder, 
he is determined to hang to it to the last. Those passages 
which speak of Christ being the " end of the law," " hath 
abolished it," &c, do not at all militate against our views. 
It had lost its divine sanction, was no longer obligatory ;J)ut 
then the temple was standing, victims were offered on the 
altar, the high priest and his subordinates were performing all 



Christ's second coming, 



Si 



that Moses had commanded them, and the " holy people " 
still retained their political existence. The law was abol- 
ished when Christ was nailed to the cross, but the Jewish 
dispensation did not close till that nation was destroyed. If 
my friend calls this in question again, I will overwhelm him 
with proof. His nonsense about the hell of conscience 
is worthy of no notice, and I shall not give it any. 

I now come to Thess. again, and all he has said on that pas- 
sage, will engage our attention but a moment. With refer- 
ence to the duration of human life, the judgment spoken of 
in that epistle, was not at band, as it was sixteen years, 
at least, distant. We do not call an event at hand, that will 
not occur till that length of time. The Apostle knew 
that years would come and go, before the coming in judgment 
would take place, and hence he told his brethren not to 
be " shaken in mind or troubled " then. I have proved that 
the " man of sin " was in the world when Paul wrote 
that epistle, but Mr. F. has paid no attention to my proof. 
As the man of sin was to be destroyed when Christ would 
come, he enquires if Christ has come, how does it happen 
that he is not destroyed ? How does Mr, F. know that the 
man of sin, that Paul speaks of, is not destroyed 1 I admit 
there is many a man of sin on earth now, but is either 
of them the one St. Paul refers to ? But all great Protestants 
declare that the man of sin is the Roman church — so Mr, F, 
says. I will inform him that he is very much mistaken, Dr. 
Clarke has the following remarks about who was the man of 
sin. " Some think that the defection of the Jewish nation, 
from their allegiance to the Roman Emperor, is all that 
is understood by the apostacy, or falling off ; and that all the 
other terms refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, Dr. 
Hammond refers it to the apostacy, to the defection of the 
primitive christians, to the Gnostic heresy ; and supposes 
that, by the man of sin and son of perdition Simon Magus, 
is meant — Grotius, applies it to Caius Cesar— Schoetgen, 
contends, strongly, that the whole refers to the case of the 
Jews, and to the utter and final destruction of the Rabbinic 
and Pharisaic system. JLr. Whitly, is nearly of the same 
sentiment — Calmet, wonders at the want of candor in the 
Protestant writers, who have gleaned up every abusive 
tale against the Bishops and church of Rome; and asks 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



them, " Would they be willing that the Catholics should 
credit all the aspersions cast on Protestantism, by its ene- 
mies ?" It then appears that " all great Protestant writers," 
do not understand this man of sin to be the Roman church. 
What ever it was, it was destroyed at the coming in judg- 
ment. If the Roman church is the man of sin that Paul 
speaks of, I can prove that the " Reformed " church to which 
my friend belongs, is a child of this man of sin, and children 
generally resemble their parents. 

He quotes several passages more, that speak of the 
coming of Christ, which I will now notice. I wish you 
to bear in mind, that I admit a future coming of Christ 
to raise the dead, but deny that he will then come in judg- 
ment ; and any passage that he may quote, that speaks of the 
future coming of Christ, will render his cause no aid, 
unless judgment is connected with it. Please remember this. 
" The glorious appearing of the great God, and our Savior 
Jesus Christ," spoken of in Titus, 2: 11, seems to refer to the 
resurrection ; and Paul, in Col. 3: 4, may refer to the same 
event. Neither of these texts say a word about judgment, 
and therefore, are of no service to him. Of course his com- 
ing to raise the dead, will be a 44 glorious appearing," and his 
coming in judgment, was " glorious" in some respects ; for 
he came to save as well as destroy ; to reward as well 
as punish. 

I am surprised that my friend supposes Matthew 24: 
30, refers to the resurrection of the dead. That whole 
chapter is parallel with Luke 21, and I proved positively, 
that N the latter chapter was all fulfilled at the overthrow 
of the Jewish nation, and he has not ventured a word 
in reply to my remarks. If he can overthrow my position, 
why does he not do it ? Why jump to a parallel passage, 
and pay no attention to my explanation and arguments 1 Is 
this the course one pursues who is seeking for truth ? But 
why did he not read the 34th verse, which is as follows : 
" Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass 
till all these things be fulfilled." . This forever settle* 
the controversy. The coming of Christ, was to take place 
during the generation our Lord was on the earth. My 
friend says, did the Jews see him come ? I answer, yes, in 
the sense, interned. Dr, Clarke? thus comments <?n the 



Christ's second coming, 



33 



30th verse, quoted by my friend : — " Then shall appear the 
sign of the Son of Man. The plain meaning of this is, that 
the destruction of Jerusalem, will be such a remarkable 
instance of divine vengeance, such a signal manifestation of 
Christ's power and glory, that all the Jewish tribes shall 
mourn, and many will, in consequence of this manifestation 
of God, be led to acknowledge Christ and his religion." 
Dr. Clarke must be right, for Christ said that the coming 
should take place within a few years. 1 shall silently pass 
all his little talk about my not believing certain declarations of 
our Savior. It is beneath contempt. The verse from 
Rev. 2: 7, speaks of the same coming that Jesus speaks 
of iu the passage we have just noticed. Dr. Clarke refers 
it to the destruction of the Jewish nation. Hear him : " Be- 
hold he cometh with clouds, and every eye shall see him, 
This relates to his coming to execute judgment on the 
enemies of his religion ; perhaps, to his coming to destroy 
Jerusalem, as he was to be particularly manifested to 
them that pierced him ; which must mean the incredulous 
and rebellious Jews. And all the kindreds of the earth shall 
wail, because of him. By this, the Jewish people are most 
evidently intended, and therefore, the whole verse may be 
understood as predicting the destruction of the Jews." 
He next cites, for the second time, Luke 21: 27, without 
making an effort to prove my exposition of it to be false ! 1 
should be ashamed to pursue such a course myself; but 
I suppose it is the very best he can do. I have not said that 
the coming of Christ was after the destruction of Jerusalem. 
Why will, he continue to misrepresent me? He cites 1 
Thess. 4, to prove a future coming of Christ, and I admit 
that the coming at the resurrection is intended; but it should 
be borne in mind that Paul, in that chapter, says not one word 
about judgment. He again cites 2 Thess. 1 : which I have 
twice shown has no reference to the resurrection. He tells 
us that the coming spoken of there, and in the first epistle, are 
identical, without one word of proof that he is correct ! When 
he proves the identity of those comings, he will have 
accomplished something for his cause ; but that he can 
never do. He says he understands me ; but from the man- 
ner he blends passages that speak of Christ's coming in 
judgment, with those that speak of his coming at theresur- 
% 



THEOLOGICAL DISCISSION. 



rection of the dead, I am led to think he misunderstands me, 
but I think there is no room for that, for I have been very 
particular to keep these two comings distinct in my remarks. 

He labored hard, to show that the coming in judgment was 
a personal coming, because it is said he would be seen. 
But if he was a little more familiar with the Bible, he would 
not have deemed that circumstance positive proof. A few 
passages will serve to illustrate the meaning of such expres- 
sions. 2 Sam, 22: 10, 11, " He bowed the heavens and 
came down ; and darkness was under his feet. And He 
rode upon a cherub, and did fly, and he was seen upon the 
wings of the wind." Here David speaks of his own deliv- 
erance, and says the Lord came down and rode, and did fly, 
and was seen. Mr. Franklin, would you not think I was 
very foolish, if I should contend this was a personal coming 
of the Lord God ? Well sir, you are now acting as foolish 
a part as I should act. 1 Isa, 19, 1. 44 The burden of 
Egypt; behold, the Lord rideth upon a swift cloud, 
and shall come into Egypt : and the idols of Egypt shall 
be moved at his presence." Here a judgment in Egypt 
is spoken of, and it is said the Lord would ride, would come 
and the idols would be moved at his presence. Why 
don't Mr. F. contend this is a personal coming ? I want to 
hear his explanation of these passages, for I presume his 
explanation of them, will be the correct meaning of all 
those passages tbat speak of the Jews seeing Christ come in 
judgment. 

1 will now introduce some passages that speak of Christ's 
coming in judgment, and you will observe that it was soon to 
take place. 

1. 44 Jesus saith unto him, (Peter,) if I will that he tarry 
till I come, what is that to thee ?" The only escape from this 
passage, is to take the ground that the apostle John, is 
still living ! 2. 44 See that ye come behind in no gift ; wait- 
ing for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." If this 
scripture does not prove that a coming of Christ was looked 
for in the days of the Apostles, then no language could prove it. 
3. 44 That thou keep this commandment without spot, unre- 
bukable, until the appearing." 4. 44 Be patient, therefore, 
brethren, unto the coming of the Lord. Behold the husband- 
man waiteth for the precious fruits of the earth, and hath 



CHRIST'S SECOND COMING, 



35 



long patience for it, until he receives the early and latter 
rains, Be ye, also patient, establish your hearts, for the 
coming of the Lord DRAWETH NIGH." James v. 7, 8. 
To say in the face of such a text as this, that the early 
Christians were not taught to expect a coming of the Lord, 
in their day and time, amounts almost to sheer infidelity ! 
Mark the language. Be patient, establish your hearts, 
for the coming of the Lord DRAWETH NIGH. 5. " And 
to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He hath raised from 
the dead." — 1 Thess. 1: 10. "And the very God of peace, 
sanctify you wholly, and 1 pray God, your whole spirit, soul, 
and body, be preserved blameless, unto to the coming of our 
Lord Jesus Christ." — v. These passages prove that the 
Thessalonians also looked for the Lord Jesus, in their 
day and time. 7. " Not forsaking the assembling of your- 
selves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting 
one another ; and so much the more, as ye see the day 
approaching." — Heb. 10: 25. 8. " For yet a little while, 
and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry."— 
Ver. 37. What sense would there have been in all this, 
if Paul knew that the Lord would not come before twenty 
centuries after the time he was writing? 9. " Blessed is he 
that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, 
and keep those things which are written therein, for the time 
is at hand "—Rev. 1: 3. " Behold I come quickly." — Rev. 
22 : 7, " He which testifieth these things saith, surely 
I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus." My 
friend contends that the coming spoken of in the passages 
just quoted, is the coming in judgment. Have I not, then, 
proved as conclusively as language can prove anything, that 
this coming is past ; and if so, the judgment connected with 
it, is also past. 

I shall now prove by the holy scriptures, that the gospel 
kingdom was to be established with justice and judgment ; 
for while my friend is trying to show that judgment will 
be in eternity, and at the close of the gospel kingdom, 
1 shall endeavor to show that it was to be on earth, and 
at the commencement of the gospel kingdom. " For unto 
us a child is born, unto us a son is given ; and the govern- 
ment shall be upon his shoulders. * * * * * * Of 
the increase of his government and peace, there shall be no 



56 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 



end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom , to 
order it, and to establish with it judgment, and with justice 
from hence forth even forever." — Isa 9: 6, 7. " He shall 
bring forth judgment to the Gentiles." — Isa 22; 2. " He 
shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment 
W the earth, and the isles shall wait for his law." Isa. 
42: 4, ** When thy judgments are in the earth, the in- 
habitans of the; world will learn righteousness." Isa. 27: 9. 
** But let him that giorieth, glory in this, that he understand- 
eth and knoweth me, that I am the Lord which exercise lov- 
ing kindness, judgment, and righteousness in the earth." 
Jer. 9 : 24. •* Behold the days come, saith the L@rd, that I 
will raise unto David a righteous branch, and a king shall 
reign and prosper, and execute judgment and justice in 
the earth." Jer. 23 : 5. My friend, and others of the 
limitarian school, are fond of saying that justice is not done 
in the earth, and therefore must be done in eternity. But 
what saith the scripture ? " I will judge thee in the place 
where thou was created, m the land of thy nativity." Eze. 
51 : 30. "Behold the righteous shall be recompensed in 
the earth ; much more the wicked and the sinner." Pro. 
11: 31 » For the time is come (not will come) that judg- 
ment must begin at the house of God." 1 Pet. 4 : 1-7. 
¥ And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, hav= 
ing the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell 
on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, 
and people, saying with a loud voice, fear God, and give 
glory to him ; for the hour of his judgment IS COME." 
Rev. 14:6,7. I wish my friend to notice the fact in his next 
speech, that whenever the scriptures speak of judgment they 
say nothing of resurrection ; and that the reverse is also 
true- 
Mr. Franklin thinks that the apostle could not speak of 
one coming in one epistle 3 and of another coming in an- 
other epistle ! hence he infers that the coming spoken of 
in the second letter to the Thessalonians is the same as 
that mentioned in the first letter ! This is somthing new 
under the sun and cannot be answered of course ! ! But re- 
ally 1 do hope for riis own sake at least, that he will try and 
do better than this. [ Time expired.] 



CH&tSf's SECOND C-6 MtKG . 



31 



MH. FRANKLIN'S THIRD SPEECH. 



Mr. Chairman: 

My last speech, as you must be well aware, remains with- 
out any thing that deserves the name of a reply. So far as 
my opponent has at all alluded to my arguments, he has gen- 
erally, if not in every instance, endeavored to call off the 
minds of our hearers to new issues, as it appears to me, to 
obscure those made in my speech. In order to do this he 
has made some statements that I think will look bad in a 
printed book. One of these statements he made in the first 
sentence he uttered in his last speech, viz : that I said " there 
was no difference betweeen the fear of the Lord and the 
fear of hell." This statement he made out and out, unless 
he understands the words of Jesus, quoted by me, "fear 
him who can destroy both soul and body in hell," to mean 
that there is no difference between the fear of the Lord and 
the fear of hell. But he felt unable to describe the horrors 
of hell in his own language, and consequently has selected 
some of the most horrific descriptions he could find from the 
language of others. This he gives you as a description of 
his view of hell, of course, for I have attempted no descrip= 
tion of my view of its horrors. Yet, you know, he will have 
it, that hell is in this world ! Well, if it is in this world, and 
as awful as he describes it to be, it is the strangest thing in 
the world that he cannot tell us what it is ! Now, it is aston- 
ishing to me, that sinners in this world, can suffer the scorch - 
ings of such an awful hell as he describes, and not even know 
it ; but it is so, because it is so ! He need not tell you that 
he is describing an orthodox hell, or the hell that I believe 
in — the hell of the Bible is what we are concerned with, and 
if he does not mean this, he is merely singing this old song 
over for effect. But he become so vexed that he could not 
restrain his temper, and burst forth in the following vent of 
his feelings: "The god of partialism is the first, the last, 
the all in this infernal business of tormenting and burning," 
This shows what he thinks of that God ; who says, H they 



38 



THEOLOGICAL DISCISSION. 



shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and 
brimstone," and of that Savior, who speaks of a " lake of 
fire prepared for the devil and his angels." The doings of 
that God, and his Son, our Lord, he takes upon himself to 

Call " INFERNAL BUSINESS OF TORMENTING AND BURNING." 

Remember that " tormenting " and " burning " are both the 
very language of the book of God, applied to the punish- 
ment of the wicked. Yet this " tormenting " and " burning " 
of which God himself speaks, he calls " infernal business," 
in the presence of this respectable audience ! ! ! 

Again he says, that I allow he will repent of saying " there 
are different degrees in glory." That is not what I said at 
all. But I said, and I now repeat it, that he will repent for 
saying, " I do believe that abusing or improving our time in 
this world will affect in some degree our future situation." 
It is true I quoted the full sentence before, but my remarks 
showed that what I have now quoted was what I said he 
would repent of. He is not therefore to turn the whole mat- 
ter off to the different degrees of glory. But in the state- 
ment just quoted, viz, that he "believes that abusing or im- 
proving our time in this world will effect in some de- 
gree our future situation," he has yielded up the bottom, 
corner stone, the grand pillar, and main distinguishing char- 
acteristic of his whole theory. The cry has been from Dan 
to Bersheba, that a finite being, in a finite state, could not do 
any thing that could in the least affect an infinite state ; but 
all this is now given up, and Mr. M. "believes that abusing 
or improving our talents in this w^orld will effect in some 
degree our future condition." In order to help him out, 
and to try to convince his brethren that he is right in this, I 
referred to the Savior's parable of the talents ; but he will 
not have the Savior with him, and insists that the parable of 
the talents has no reference to the eternal state. Well, I 
cannot get him to agree to any thing — not even with himself. 
At one time, the improvement of our talents will affect our 
future situation, and at another time, it has no reference to 
it. But you may rely upon it, my friends, that he was right 
in the first place, and that neglecting or improving our tal- 
ents will effect our future condition ; for the Savior says, 
"the unprofitable servant shall be cast into outer darkness; 
there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Now, if all 



CHRIST'S SECOND COMING. 



39 



who neglect to improve their talents are ca3t into this outer 
darkness, and suffer this weeping and gnashing of teeth, in 
this life, it is not very severe on a great many of them, for 
they seem entirely unconscious of it! But this is not 
strange to a man who can believe that sinners can be tor- 
mented forever and ever in this life, and suffer the ven- 
geance of an eternal fire, without knowing that they have 
been in hell at all ! Such is the consummate nonsense Uni- 
versalism makes of the word of God. 

The gentleman tells you that I complain because he did 
not prove from history that the apostles and Christ told the 
truth. You all know better than this. We all know that 
they told the truth, but when he says that the coming of 
Christ to judge the world is past, he says what they never 
said ; and therefore I simply complain that he did not prove 
what he said himself. He tells you that the coming of 
Christ to judge the word — to render to every man according 
as his work shall be — to take vengeance on them that know 
not God, by flaming fire — to torment them forever and ever, 
with a sorer punishment than death, without mercy, is all 
past. Well, I complain of him for not pointing us to the 
time when it passed. This he hesitates upon, and no won- 
der, for he sees the quick-sand upon which 1 am bound to 
strand him. A mighty judgment, that of which he speaks, 
when he cannot tell us what it is! He says, "as Christ 
taught he would come in judgment in the life-time of some 
who were living when he was on earth, I believe that event 
took place exactly as he intended." He will have to read 
his Bible again, for Christ never taught any such thing. He 
cannot find that language in the whole Bible. 

No'one, as 1 know of, ever thought there will be two judg- 
ments after death. I have said nothing of but one judgment 
after death, and therefore all his parade about the two judg- 
ments after death, is like the printer's "two lines which look 
so solemn, just put in to fill up the column." But what a 
glorious disciplinary influence his judgment and punishment 
are to have in this world, when not one sinner under the 
whole heavens knows tohat or when they were, and he as a 
minister of righteousness, is almost d2termined not to tell 
what they were, or when they were. But if he cannot tell 
us where his judgment ivas, I can very soon show you where 



4o 



TttfeoLOoicAt DiscfssioN. 



he is. He is in a most sad dilemma, from which he never 
can escape, which I will now show in a very few words. — 
He dare not say that the judgment Christ will visit on the 
wicked at his coming, is the hell of conscience, for if he 
does, he either admits that conscience is done away, and all 
past in the life-time of the apostles ; or else he admits that 
my affirmative is true, and that the coming of Christ is fu- 
ture. Come friend M., tell us how you are to get along with 
this beautiful theory of yours ! ! Did Christ come in fla- 
ming fire — in the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God, vis- 
iting the terrible judgment of the hell of conscience upon 
the disobedient in the life-time of some of the apostles ?— 
And is it so that conscience was done away, and that the fla- 
ming fire of its fierce lashings has gone out, and that there is 
to be nothing of it in the future 1 If Christ has come, and 
visited all the fierce judgments upon the world in the life-time 
of the apostles, he ever intends to, then 1 may treat you as 
I please in this discussion hereafter, without any fears of 
being judged in this world or that which is to come. This, 
my friend, now contends for, and consequently there is no 
judgment for us. What a blessed and restraining influence 
it will have on the wicked, to tell them that in the days of 
the apostles, God inflicted upon the wicked the lashings of a 
guilty conscience, but that this judgment is now done away, 
and that the coming of Christ to judge the world is not future ! 
But I must have pity on him, for he is heartily sick of the 
hell of conscience, and says, "this nonsense about the hell 
of conscience is worthy of no notice, and I shall not give it 
any." My Universalian friends, did you observe that l . Af- 
ter all his preaching to you about the hell of conscience, he 
now is completely driven from that point, and calls it, " this 
nonsense about the hell of conscience Well, he is right, 
it is nonsense, and not only nonsense, but downright foolish- 
ness, and I am glad to hear him cry out so lustily. 

My friend is beginning to commit himself to some extent. 
He says, " I have not said the coming of Christ was after 
the destruction of Jerusalem. Why will he continue to mis- 
represent me ? " Again he says, 44 1 am surprised that he 
supposes that Matt. 24 : 36, refers to the resurrection of the 
dead. That whole chapter is parallel with Luke 21, and 1 
proved positively that the latter chapter was all fulfilled at 



CHRISrS SECOND COMING, 



44 



the overthrow of the Jewish nation. 1 ' Now let me have 
your attention to the 24th of Matt., and see whether he 
has proved that the coming of Christ there spoken of, was 
all fulfilled at the destruction of the Jewish nation. At the 
22d verse, he is speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem, 
and at the 23d says, " Then if any man shall say unto you 
Lo, here is Christ, or there ; believe it not." What time 
does he refer to, when he says " Then if any man shall say 
to you? " Evidently "then" at the destruction of Jerusa- 
lem. Well, what "then ? " Why, " if any man shall say 
to you Lo, here is Christ, believe it not." Mr. M., " thou 
art the man." You say, there ivas Christ ; and Christ says, 
" believe it not" Shall we believe you ? or believe Christ? 
when he says, "believe it not " At the 29th verse, the Sa- 
vior proceeds: " Immediately after the tribulation of those 
days," The tribulation of what days ? The destruction 
of Jerusalem, surely. Well, w T hat shall be " immediately 
after the tribulation of those days ? " The Savior answers : 
" Then shall apjjear the sign of the Son of Man in the 
heaven" Well, then the sign of the Son of man did not 
appear in the heaven till after the destruction of Jerusalem, 
and of course the coming of Christ itself was after the sign 
of his coming. Then Mr. M. did not prove positively that 
this chapter and the 21st of Luke "were all fulfilled at the 
destruction of Jerusalem," as he says he did, and the de- 
struction of Jerusalem is so far from being called the com* 
ing of Christ, that the sign of his coming is declared by 
the Lord himself to be after that event, and of course the 
coming must be after the sign of the coming. If Mr. M. 
could have seen any man at the destruction of Jerusalem, cry- 
ing, " Lo, here is Christ" in the place of "believing it 
not," as Jesus commanded him, he would have joined and 
assisted in making the proclamation in the very deed, for at 
this distant period, he contends that Christ icas the/£e, and 
it was there "every eye " saw him ! Well, he takes upon 
himself to say, you must believe, what Jesus said you must 
not believe. I have now proved, beyond the possibility of 
refutation, that at the time of the destruction of Jurusalem, 
Jesus was not there, and if any man should say he was, that 
we are not to believe it ; and that the sign of the coming of 
Christ did not appear in heaven till after the tribulation 



41 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



of those days, and consequently that the coming must be 
after that, so that great event must be sought in some other 
direction. * 

I am aware that I referred to several passages where the 
coming of Christ is spoken of and nothing said about judg- 
ment, and I think Mr. M. knew what I referred to them for. 
In his former speech he had placed the coming of Christ 
"in glory and judgment among the things that were, and 
I quoted these passages that speak of his " coming in glory " 
to show that the coming in glory is future This point I 
gained so fully, that he admitted in his last speech, that the 
coming at the resurrection , would be a coming in glory ; but 
he allows the first coming, or the coming at the destruction 
of Jerusalem, as he calls it, was a coming in glory. Well* 
he is a strange composition any way you can look at him. 
At one time he calls the work of 44 tormenting and burning, " 
** infernal business," and then at another time, when ha 
speaks of the torture, starvation aud human butchery that 
took place at the destruction of Jerusalem, he calls it the ap- 
pearing of Christ in 44 glory and judgment ! ! " 

When I ask him to acknowledge his faith in certain pas- 
sages, he tells you that he shall silently pass them, That 
is exactly what I told you at the beginning. T knew I should 
find some passages he would not confess his faith in. You 
see then already that it has come to pass, and he will not 
admit that he believes the passages referred to. 

I stated in the outset that my friend finding something 
called a coming of Christ, which was past, would not avail 
him any thing, unless he could show that it was the coming 
of Christ to judge the ivorld. Yet in his last speech, he has 
referred to several passages that speak of some coming of 
Christ, but not one which speaks of coming to judge the 
world. Now I admitted that there are places where a 
comingvof Christ is spoken of, that do not allude to the com- 
ing to judge the world, and that there are judgments spoken 
of that are in this world ; therefore all his references to 
judgments and comings amount to nothing, unless he refers 
xo those that speak of a coming to judge the world. He re= 
fers to several passages that speak of judgments, but which 
of them speaks of judging the world ? The world was not 
judged at the destruction of Jerusalem, nor at at any time 



Christ's second coming. 



4S 



since that event, or else the word world does not include all, 
for millions upon millions of the world had not come into 
existence at that time, and in all probability have not yet 
come into existence, and if the coming to judge the world 
is not future, those who have not yet come upon the stage of 
action will not be judged at all. . Yet he tells you every 
man will be rewarded according to his works, in one breath, 
and in the next, that the day of rewards passed in the life- 
time of some the apostles. His whole ivorld then, simply 
means the few who were destroyed at the destruction of Je- 
rusalem. You will see him attach a different meaning to 
the words whole world, when his affirmative comes up. 

But if you will observe, he is involved in another diffi- 
culty. He says that he has proved that the coming to judge 
the world was in the life-time of some of the apostles, It 
must be then, that the coming to judsre the world took place 
before the destruction of Jerusalem, for if I understand him, 
the apostles all died before that event took place, and that 
the whole volume of God was completed, and the judgments 
spoken of in the book of Revelations, were all fulfilled at 
the destruction of Jerusalem, Now can he prove that the 
coming in judgment was in the life-time of some of the 
apostles, and that they all died before the destruction of Jeru- 
salem, and yet that the coming was at the time of that sad 
catastrophe ? And can the Savior's words be true, at the 
same time, which put the the sign of his coming immedi- 
ately after the tribulation of those days ? And are the Sa- 
vior's words to be believed when he says, " If any man shall 
say Lo, here is CJtrist, believe it not 1 " If they are, my 
friend's words are not to be relied on, when he says, the 
coming of Christ was there , and that every eye saw him 
there. 

I have now proved beyond all doubt, that my friend does 
not believe that sinners of our day will ever be judged or 
punished in any way for sin, not even by the lashings of con- 
science, for the coming of Christ to judge the world, was all 
fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem, and since that time 
there has been no hell, judgment, or punishment of any 
kind for the ungodly, and never will be ; and therefore my 
friend and myself can talk and believe just what we please, 
withoui any danger of being brought to punisment, for there 



44 



T#EOLO£ICAL DlSCUSStQN. 



will not- — there cannot, and there shall not be any future 
judgment. Yet he says the wicked shall not go unpunished. 
Sublime theory! Glorious consistency ! Who will prosti- 
tute his reputation for good judgment and sense, so as to 
swallow down such an egregious bundle of silly contradic- 
tions and nonsense. 

Mr. M. has now admitted that 1 Thess. 4 : 14, 18, refers 
to the coming at the resurrection of the dead, and conse- 
quently that it is personal ; but he takes it upon himself to 
deny that the coming spoken of in 2 Thess. 1 : 8, 9, refers 
to the same event ! What reason does he give for suppo- 
sing that the apostle here speaks of two comings ? None 
at all, but his bare assertion. This is not sufficient to con- 
vince this respectable audience. But I can show the best 
reasons in the world for believing that both passages allude 
to the same coming. The apostle, in the first epistle, speaks 
of the personal coming at the resurrection of the dead, and 
then without giving the slightest intimation that he speaks 
of any other coming than the one he had before spoken of, 
speaks of his coming in the second letter, in several of the 
same words used in the first letter. For instance, in the 
first he says, "the Lord himself shall decend from heaven 
with a shout." In his second he says, u the Lord Jesus 
shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels." In 
the first he says, " then we which are alive and remain, shall 
be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the 
Lord in the air, and so shall we ever be with the Lord."— 
In the the second he says, " when he shall come to be glo- 
rified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that be- 
lieve." Did the Lord come to be glorified in them that be- 
lieve at the destruction of Jerusalem ? Surely not. But he 
will when the saints shall be caught up to meet the Lord in 
the air. As it is expressed in the 3d of Col., "then shall 
we also appear with him in glory." This perfectly accords 
with Matt. 25: 31. " When the Son of man shall come in 
his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he 
sit upon the throne of his glory." In these passages, we 
have the Lord coming from heaven, the angels with him, 
the trump of God, the resurrection of the dead, the Son of 
God upon the throne of his glory, and all the nations as= 
sembled before him, W@H, now we have come to the time 



CHRIST S SECOND CODING. 



45 



of the judgment. Is it past or future ? He admits that one 
of the passages speaks of the resurrection state. Well, then 
they all do, for they evidently all relate to the same time. — 
Was there to be a judgment after death ? or was all judg- 
ment to be before death ? " I charge thee, therefore, before 
God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick 
and dead at his appearing and kingdom." 2 Tim. 4: 1. 
Here then, is judgment, an appearing, and a kingdom, at 
which the dead are to be judged. Yes, it is asserted in so 
many words, that the dead shall be judged at the appearing 
of Christ. This scripture, my friend does not believe, for 
he contends that the dead shall not be judged. The apostle 
Feter says, Christ " was ordained of God to be the judge of 
the quick and dead,'' Acts 10: 42. Does my friend be- 
lieve this passage ? If he does I hope he will tell you so. 
The very moment he says he believes this passage, he ad= 
mits that the dead will be judged. This he does not believe. 
But again the word of the Lord says, " it is appointed unto 
men once to die, but after this the judgment." Heb. 9 : 27. 
And the very next verse after this connects the judgment af- 
ter death with the coming of Christ. Then if the language 
of God can prove any thing, 1 have proved that the judg= 
ment at the coming of Christ is after death. Indeed the 
word of the Lord says, " after that the judgment."— 
Mr. 3VL do you believe this scripture I I do not ask you if 
you believe my view of it, but is it true 1 If it is, judgment 
will be after death," for that is just what it says. John 
says, I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, 
from whose face the heaven and the earth fled away ; and 
there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, 
small and great, stand before God ; and the books were 
opened : and another book was opened, which is the book of 
life ; and the dead were judged out of those things which 
were written in the books, according to their works. And 
the sea gave up the dead which were in it ; and death and 
hell delivered up the dead which were in them ; and they 
were judged every man according to their works." Rev. 
20; 11-13. This passage is as explicit as language can be. 
It places the king upon his throne, and specifies the dead 
three times over, and even mentions the repository of the 
dead, and the books out of which they should be judged. — 



46 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



Does Mr. M. believe the king will sit upon the throne, and 
that the dead will stand before him ? Does he believe as 
stated in this passage, that the dead will be judged ? 

1 will now spend a moment to place Mr. M. in his proper 
attitude before this community. He has enquired what good 
punishment after death can do 1 I answer, that it will main- 
tain the government of God throughout the universe, and 
especially to restrain evil spirits in this world. But can he 
tell us what good such a punishment as he talks of will do ? 
Will it restrain sinners to tell them Jerusalem is destroyed ? 
Will it restrain sinners to tell them the judgment is past ? — 
Will it restrain them to preach up a hell of conscience in 
one breath, nnd then call it " this nonsense about the hell of 
conscience" in the next ? Will it restrain sinners to tell 
them in one sermon, that the day of judgment came in the 
life-time of the apostles, and in the next sermon, that every 
day is a day of judgment ? A mighty restraining doctrine to 
tell sinners, that every man shall be rewarded according to 
his works, and then when asked what that reward is, tell him 
the destruction of Jerusalem ! All that are in their graves 
came forth at the destruction of Jerusalem, they that had 
done good to the resurrection of life, and they that had 
done evil to the resurrection of damnation ; and it was 
there the dead, small and great stood before God, and were 
judged ; yes, and it was there the Lord Jesus was revealed 
from heaven in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that 
knew not God and obeyed not the the gospel ; and it was there 
the hell of conscience passed away ! ! ! At this day there 
is no hell of conscience, or any other hell, and never will 
be, for there is no coming of Christ to judge the " quick and 
dead," in the future ! [Time expired.] 



Christ's second coming-. 



17 



MR MANFGRD'S THIRD REPLY, 



Ladies and Gentlemen : 

Many things said by Mr. Franklin in his last speech 
are of an irrelevant nature, and I shall therefore pass 
them by without comment or notice. 

The first thing which has any bearing on the question, is 
his denial of tjie fact that "Christ taught that he would come 
in judgment during the lifetime of some who were living 
when he was on earth." lie says I will have to read my 
Bible again, " for Christ never taught any such thing. " 
Well, let us see ; 1 have asserted that he did, and I seldom 
make assertions, my friends, without I know whereof I af- 
firm. Turn to Matt, 16: 27, 28 : "For the Son of man 
shall come in the glory of his Father, with his angels, and 
then he shall reward every man according to his tcorks; 
verily I say unto you, there be some standing here who shall 
not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his 
kingdom.' 9 Here you see, he declares that he was to come 
in his kingdom to reward every man according to his works, 
before some whom he addressed should taste of death. Was 
he not then to "come in judgment during the lifetime of some 
who were living when he was on earth?" I leave it to you 
to decide. 

The two Judgments after death:— I know Mr. Franklin 
had not said "anything about two judgments after death;" and 
no doubt he would be glad if I had said nothing about them— 
but does he not believe in "two judgments after death?"— 
That's the question ! He has a good deal to say about my 
inconsistencies — let us look at some of his. Does he not 
believe the soul goes either to heaven or hejl immediately 
after death 1 And does it not go to the one or the other 
place, in accordance with a judgment pronounced upon it, 
deciding that it is deserving of either the one or other, as the 
character of the individual may have been 1 This is the 
common doctrine, and I will venture to say that Mr. Frank- 
lin believes it, or at least acquiesces in it. If he does not, 



43 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION, 



Jet him tell what he thinks becomes of the soul, immdiately 
after death. This, then, is one judgment. But does he not 
believe in another judgment — a great and terrible judgment, 
when the thousands that have gone to heaven , and the mil- 
lions (if orthodoxy be true) that have gone to hell, will be 
brought back again, all congregated together and judged over 
again 1 This is what is to take place at that judgment which 
he is now trying to prove. I only give you this as one of 
the beauties of my friend's system ! You can pursue the 
subject at your leasure. 

My friend next comes to the 24th chapter of Matthew; and 
truly he labors hard to make it appear that Christ was not to 
come till after the destruction of Jerusalem ! He admits 
that he was to come "immediately" after that event; but he 
thinks it could not have been previous to it, nor at the time 
of it. His argument is based upon the adverb "then." He 
says, "At the 22d verse he 13 speaking of the destruction of 
Jerusalem." The gentleman has fallen into a slight error 
here; — Christ is speaking, not of the destruction of the city, 
but of the "tribulation" that was immediately to precede it— 
of wars and rumors of wars — nation rising against nation- 
kingdom against kingdom — famines, pestilence, earthquakes, 
&c— which were "the beginning of sorrows;" and of "false 
prophets," and "false Christs," and finally of the approach of 
the Roman army, (or "the abomination of desolation spoken 
of by Daniel) and, in the 23d verse, says: "Then if any man 
shall say unto you, Lo here is Christ, or theie, believe it 
not." But I will admit, for the sake of the argument, that 
the word "then" applies to the destruction of Jerusalem— 
that Christ had reference to that very identical time, as Mr. 
Franklin contends; — and what will his argument amount to? 
Just nothing at all ! "Then (at the destruction of Jerusa- 
lem) if any man shall say unto you" — mark that, "if any 
man shall say unto you, Lo here is Christ, or there, believe 
it not." And why ? Because "there shall arise false 
Qhrists, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and 
wonders" — "and shall deceive many" — "the very elect, 
if it were possible !" And further, because you are to take 
no man's word in this matter: Behold, 1 have told you be- 
fore! "False Christs" did arise at that time, and deceived 
many — as history testifies ; and Christ knowing that this 



CHFvIST'S SECOND COMIWG. 



would bo the case, cautioned his disciples against them — 
telling them to take no man's word; that if any man shall 
say unto you, Lo here ; believe it not ; depend upon your 
own senses, and upon what I have told you — ''For as light- 
ning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west, 
so shall the coming of the Son of man be." You ara to 
"look up" to the heavens for his "sign," and "see him com- 
ing in the clouds, with power and great glory." You are 
not to look for him "in the desert," nor "in the secret 
chamber!' 9 — nor are you to take any man's word for it, but 
rely upon yourselves, and upon what I have told you ! 

But let us read on a little further, my friends, since we 
have got into the merits of the case, we may as well go 
through with it. "Immediately after the tribulation of those 
days:" I understand the "tribulation of those days" to 
refer to the "tribulations" which immediately preceded tho 
destruction of Jerusalem; — but as Mr. Franklin is desirous 
that it should be referred to the time of the destruction, I am 
willing to accommodate him, as it is a matter of but little 
consequence, so far as the main question is concerned. It 
means, then, the destruction of Jerusalem. Well, "Immedi- 
ately after the destruction of the city, shall the sun be dark- 
ened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars 
shall fall from heaven, &c, and then shall appear the sign 
of the Son of man in heaven, and then shall the tribes of 
the earth (or land) mourn ; and then (when? Why then,) 
shall ye see the son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, with 
power and great glory." How long, think you, my friends, 
is immediately! You recollect Mr. Franklin admitted in his 
last speech that "the sign of the Son of man, was to be 
seen immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem, I told 
you in my previous speech that I had not said "the coming 
of Christ was after the destruction of Jerusalem." The 
gentleman, true to his nature, caught at the bait, and so goes 
right to work in his last speech to prove that the ''sign' 1 of 
the Son of man, and his "coming," were to take place im- 
mediately after the destruction of Jerusalem ! He is a won- 
derful man to catch at little things ! But what better does 
it make it for him, whether Christ was to come before, at, or 
immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem ? He must 
recollect that it was not only immediately after } but immedi* 
4 



50 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

aiely after that event. How long, again I would ask, is im- 
mediately? 

But let us read on: "Now learn a parable (or lesson) of 
the fig-tree. When his branch is yet tender, and putteth 
forth the leaves, ye know that summer is nigh ; so likewise 

YE, when YE SHALL SEE THESE THINGS, KNOW THAT IT IS NIGH, 

even at the doors." Know that ivhat is nigh? Why just 
what he had been talking about- — the coming of the Son of 
man in the clouds of heaven, and the end of the world or 
age. And who did he mean by "ye?" — who were to "see 
all these things," and were to "know that it was nigh, even 
at the doors? The disciples — the identical persons to whom 
he was speaking. Were not "all these things," — the 
coming of the Son of man included — to take place during 
their lifetime? Were THEY not to SEE "all these things?" 
"Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass till 
ALL THESE THINGS be fulfilled." Now, recollect 
that his "coming" and every thing else of which he had 
been speaking previous to the 34th verse — included in the 
phrase "all these things" — was to take place, or "be ful- 
filled," during that generation . This will not be denied.— 
, Here then I rest the matter — at least until I hear from Mr. 
Franklin. Say what he will, he cannot avoid ihe fact that 
Christ was to come in the clouds of heaven, with power 
and great glory, during that generation, which, at farthest, 
could not have meant beyond the lifetime of some who were 
living at that time. But by his admission that "the sign" of 
his coming was to be seen "immediately" after the destruc- 
tion of the city, he has yielded the whole matter. For it 
must be evident to all, that the very identical persors who 
were to see the "sign" of his coming, were also to see his 
"coming." I will therefore pass to notice one or two passa= 
ges introduced by my friend in his last speech. 

"I charge thee therefore, before God and the Lord Jesus 
Christ; who shall judge the quick and the dead, at his apear- 
ing, and his kingdom" — 2 Tim. 4: 1. 

Mr. Franklin supposes that the word "dead," in this place, 
means those who are literally dead 7 Well, suppose we ad- 
mit it for a moment, and see what kind of a judgment we 
shall have. If the word "dead" means those that are lii- 
erally dead, then of course the word "quick" has an oppo- 



Ct-TRIST*S SECOND COMING. 51 

site meaning, and refers to those that are literally alive. — 
According then to this exposition of the text, people who are 
literally dead, and who are literally alive, will stand before 
God and be judged ! Imagine to yourselves, for a moment, 
my friends, a vast multitude — some dead, and some alive — 
standing up to receive the sentence of the great Judge ! 
Recollect, my friends, I am not ridiculing the Bible, nor am 
I ridiculing Mr. Franklin — it is only his interpretation of the 
passage. I am only showing the conclusions to which his 
view of the text would lead. I am sure he will thank me 
for it, and will immedately abandon an interpretation which 
presents such a ridiculous view of the subject. 

But that we may understand what is meant by the "quick 
and the dead," let us turn to Eph. 2: 1, and see what is said. 
4 4 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses 
and in sins." Of course then, those who had been "quick- 
ened" could be called "quick;" — and those who had 
not been "quickened" were still "dead" These are the 
kind of "quick and dead" persons that were to be judged by 
"the Lord Jesus Christ" when he should appear in his 
kingdom — the righteous and the wicked, or believers and un- 
believers.. Let us now see when this judgment was to take 
place. Recollect, it was to be "at his appearing and his 
kingdom;" — or, as more properly rendered by Wakefield, 
Tyndale, and others — at his appearing in his kingdom, We 
have just seen when this "appearing," or "coming of the 
Son of man" was to take place ; but to render the matter 
more certain, and make "assurance doubly sure," let us read 
Matt. 16: 28 — "Verily I say unto you, there be some stand* 
lag here which shall not taste of death, till they see the 
Son of man COMING IN HIS KINGDOM." Let this 
suffice for the present. 

Another passage introduced by Mr. Franklin is Rev. 20; 
11, 12— "And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat 
on it, from whose face the earth and heaven fled away; and 
there was found no place for them : And I saw the dead, 
small and great, stand before God ; and the books were 
opened ; and another book was opened, which was the book 
of Life ; and the dead were judged out of those things which 
were written in the books, according to their works." 

1 am pleased that my friend has introduced this passage, 



61 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



I have already stated during this discussion, that the coming 
of Christ to set up his judgment, was to be at the time when 
he received his kingdom, and commenced his reign — and not 
when he was to give up his kingdom and terminated his 
reign. It will be found that this propostion is sustained by 
the passage just read from Revelation, when explained by its 
parallel in Dan. 7: 9—1 4. These two passages are parallel, 
as my friend admits. Let us now read from Daniel. "I 
beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of 
days did sit ; whose garment was white as snow, and the 
hair of his head like the pure wool ; his throne like the 
fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery 
stream issued and came forth from before him ; thousand 
thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten 
thousand stood before him ; the judgment was set, and the 
books were opened. I beheld then, because of the voice 
of the great words which the horn spake. I beheld even 
till thef beast was slain, and its body destroyed and given to 
the burning flame. As concerning the rest of the beasts, 
they had their dominion taken away; yet their lives were 
prolonged for a season and a time." Here then, according 
io my friend's own admission, is an account of the same 
"judgment" of which we have read from Eevelation. That 
both Daniel and the Revelator refer to the same scene, is 
evident from their language : The judgment ivas set — and 
the books were opened, &c. But this "judgment," I affirm, 
was to be prior, or before the coming of the Son of man to 
receive his kingdom, and to establish his reign upon earth. 
In other words, prior to the opening of the gospel dispensa- 
tion. Let us now read right on from Daniel, beginning 
where we left off. "I saw in the night visions, (during the 
same dream, or vision) one like the Son of man came with 
the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and 
they brought him near before him ; (the Ancient of days) 
and there was given him (the Son of man) dominion, and 
glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and lan- 
guages should serve him ; his dominion is an everlasting do- 
minion which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that 
which shall not be destroyed." Now, who does not see 
that this language refers to the commencement of the gospel 
dispensation— when Christ, as the "one like the Son of man/ 



Christ's SECOND coming. 



65 



was to receive "dominion, " and "glory," and a "kingdom?" 
In other words, when he was to "come in his kingdom?" 
It cannot refer to the future state, or the close of the Mes- 
siah's reign ; for then he is to "deliver up the kingdom to 
the Father," according to Paul's account in the 15th of 1 
Corinthians. It refers to the beginning, and not the end- 
ing of Christ's reign. This fact is established beyond dispute. 

Notice now that this "judgment" of the "Ancient of 
days," which is the same as is referred to in Rev. 20 — was 
immediately preceeding the time when the "Son of man" 
received his kingdom ; consequently it must have taken 
place some 1800 years ago, or more! Having now disposed 
of my friends "tremendous judgment," I pass next to take 
a look at his "lake of fire and brimstone." 

He seems to think that this lake of fire and brimstone, 
mentioned in Rev. 19: 20, 21, is in the immortal state; let 
us read the passage and see : "And the beast was taken, and 
with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, 
with which he deceived them that had received the mark of 
the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These 
both (the beast and the false prophet) were cast ALIVE into 
a lake of fire, burning with brimstone." Now, just so cer- 
tain as "the beast and the false prophet" belong to this mode 
of existence, just so certain does the "lake of fire and brim- 
stone" also. They were to be "cast alive" into it. Surely 
they could not be "cast alive" into the future state of ex- 
istence ! But let us read a little further and see what be- 
came of them that were "deceived" by the false prophet, 
and that "worshipped the beast's image." "And the rem- 
nant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the 
horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth ; and all the 
FOWLS were filled with their FLESH !" Are there to be 
foxds in the future world ? And do flesh and blood in- 
herit the immortal state ? 

But again : The "lake of fire and brimstone" mentioned 
in Rev. 19, is evidently the same as the "lake of fire" men- 
tioned in the 20th chapter I presume my friend believes in 
but one "lake of fire," or "lake of fire and brimstone." Well, 
in immediate connexion with the "judgment" (Rev. 20: 11, 
12) which we have seen took place more than 1800 years 
ago, is it said that "whosoever was not found written in the 



54 



T HEOLOG-1 CAL HISCTj SSION > 



book of life was cast into the lake of fire.'' And what is 
still more, the Revelator goes right on to describe the com* 
mencement of the gospel dispensation, or christian church, 
in the highly figurative and beautiful language of "a new 
heaven and a new earth," terming it the "holy city," the 
"new Jerusalem." "And I John saw the holy city, new Je- 
rusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as 
a bride adorned for her husband ; and I heard a great voice 
out of heaven saying, 'Behold, the tabernacle of God is with 
men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his peo= 
pie, and God himself shall be with them, and be their 
God!"— Rev. 21: 1-3. There can be no doubt but this 
beautiful language applies to the church militant — the new 
dispensation, or reign of the Messiah on earth. What a nice 
correspondence there is between the vision of Daniel and 
that of John ! In the first instance, "the judgment was set, 
and the books were opened" — and Daniel "beheld till the 
beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the 
burning flamed—then immediately after this "judgment" 
and "burning" of the "beast," he saw, in the same "night 
visions" the "coming of the Son of man," to receive "do- 
minion, and glory, and a kingdom'' — in other words, the 
opening of the gospel dispensation. John also saw the 
"judgment"— "a great white throne, and him that sat on 
it"— and "the books were opened"— the "beast " together 
with the "false prophet," were cast into a lake "burning with 
fire and brimstone" — then immediately after this "judg- 
ment," and "burning" of the "beast," John also saw the 
ushering in of the new dispensation," or reign of the Messiah 
—as described in the beautiful language just read in your 
hearing— "the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from 
God out of heaven." 

I think you can see now, my friends, that this "judgment," 
whenever it was, has long since passed. One thing is cer- 
tain; it preceded the gospel dispensation— how long, I pre- 
tend not to say — but that it did precede it, is a fact as 
clearly established as any fact of history can be. My oppo= 
n-ent may try to make it appear differently; but he will try 
in vain — I defy him to avoid this conclusion ! 

I am gratified to find that Mr. Franklin is not disposed to 
deny the fact, that the early christians did look for a "com- 



Christ's second coming. 



65 



ing" in their day and generation. This fact is so evident 
that but lew men can be found who have the hardihood to 
deny it. Will my friend be so good as to inform us what 
kind of a coming of Christ it was that the early christians 
looked for ? We would be pleased to know also, what caused 
them to expect a "coming" in their day] What put it in 
their heads that such would be the fact ? Surely they would 
not look for an event which had not been promised ! Now, if 
it was an error for them to look for a coming of Christ in 
their lifetime, would not the apostles have corrected this 
error I But instead of doing this, they frequently encour- 
aged them to look for such an event. Hear James, in his 
letter to his brethern, written a very few years before the de- 
struction of Jerusalem — "Establish your hearts; for the 
coming of the Lord DRAWETH NIGH" — J as, 5: 8.— 
What "coming" did the apostle allude to here ? Does not 
this language convey the idea that the "coming of the Lord'* 
was to be in the lifetime of the persons addressed ? Could 
it be said of a "coming" that is yet future, that it "drew 
nigh" in the days of the apostle ? But perhaps my friend 
will say this coming was not a coming to "judge," Read 
the next verse: — "grudge not one against another, brethren, 
lest ve be condemned ; (or damned) behold, THE JUDGE 
STANDETH BEFORE THE DOOR ! " 

In referring to my last speech, Mr. Franklin says I have 
referred to "several passages that speak of judgment, but 
which of them speak of judging the world?" My friends, 
what is the import of this language I Why, it is virtually 
admitting that all I lack of proving my proposition is, that 
the judgment is not quite extensive enough, If the passages 
I have quoted had only spoken of "judging the world,' 7 I 
would have gained my point ! Then according to this ad- 
mission, I have proved that the coming of Christ to judg- 
ment took place at the commencement of the Christian dis- 
pensation, just as I have contended. My friend, I repeat, 
virtually admits this; but says, in hope of escaping the diffi= 
culty, that these passages only "speak of judginenV' — that 
there is nothing said about "judging the world.''' Very well; 
I am satisfied with the admission — it is really more than 
I expected from my friend ! But as I have proved be- 
yond a doubt, (and as he has admitted) that the coming of 



fmotooiCAt tISCtJSSlOK. 



Christ, to execute "judgment," took place some 1800 years 
ago, I will ask my friend Mr. Franklin to point out the evi- 
dence of any other "conning" connected with ''judgment" — 
either to "judge the world," or any part of it ! Let him do 
this and I will be satisfied. 

But my friends, I wish you to notice the unfairness of my 
opponent. He says the passages I have introduced say noth- 
ing about 'judging the world." And pray what passage that 
he has introduced, connected with the coming of Christ, says 
any thing about "judging the world?" He has been trying 
to prove that Christ is yeit to come to "judge the world." 
Has he done it ? Let him find a passage that speaks of 
Christ coming to judge the world, and [ promise you, my 
friends, to show that it is a past event — at least, that the 
"coming" is past, and that the passage belongs to my side 
of the question I He that diggeth a pit oftentimes falleth 
into it himself! 

If Mr. Franklin could have shown that the future com- 
ing of Christ will be a "coming to judgment" — say nothing 
of "judging the world 1 " — but even judgment — 1 would have 
yielded the point at once, without asking him to prove that 
it means "judging the world." But as he has made this 
issue himself, he must not think hard of me if I hold him 
to it hereafter. Let him tell us, if he pleases, how many 
of his proof-texts speak of a coming to "judge the world." 

As I have proved that Christ was to come during the apos- 
tolic age — that the early christains looked for this event — 
and that this coming was to be connected with "judgment," 
it is very easy to see why my opponent raises this objection. 
It was his last resort. I have not proved any thing about 
"judging the world ! " He then assumed the position that 
the word "world" means every individual of Adam's race 
that ever did, or ever will live. Hence he says "Christ 
could not have judged the icorld in the past, for very many 
of the world were not born at that time." Truly, he is a 
very ingenious man ! Will he abide the definition of the 
word "world?" I suppose if he had been present when our 
Savior said to the disciples, "The world hateth you," he 
would have replied, "Not so, my Lord, for many of the 
world have not been born yet!" And again, when Jesus 
§aid ? "Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more," 



Christ's second tomm, 



67 



he would have replied, "Nay, Lord ; you should not say so; 
your language implies that the world. seen you ; this is 
not correct, for many of the world have not been born yet!" 
But I repeat, will my friend abide this definition of the 
word ? If he will, let him say so in his next speech, and I 
will then show him what will be the consequences! 

But, my friends, have I not given you passages that speak 
of "judging the world?" What of Matt. 1: 6th? "For the 
Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father, with his 
angels, and then he shall reward every man according to 
his works" Does not this convey the idea of "judging?" 
And does not my friend carry this "coming" into the future, 
to his great day of judgment 1 Certainly he does. But I 
defy him to get it beyond the lifetime of some who heard 
him announce it ! And so of nearly every passage that I 
have quoted. They are ail connected, more or less, with 
judgment — and a judgment of the world, too. "Behold 1 
come quickly, and my reward is with me, to give to every 
man according as his work shall be" — Rev. 22: 12. "Be- 
hold the judge standeth at the door." The difficulty under 
which Mr. Franklin labors, is, that he has got the erroneous 
idea into his head that the judgment of Christ was to take 
place, and be consummated, all at once ! This is the com- 
mon idea with the majority of christians ! But nothing 
could be more erroneous, or farther from the truth ! He 
should recollect that Christ was not to "judge the world," all 
at once ! This is a progressive work. It commenced in a 
very signal manner,. at the destruction of the Jewish nation, 
when Christ came to establish his kingdom. It has been 
going on ever since, is still going on, and will continue to 
go on, until Christ closes his reign, and delivers up the king- 
dom to his Father. When it is said "He hath appointed a 
day in which he will judge the world" by Jesus Christ, we 
should recollect that this is the gospel day, or dispensation, 
in which the world is to be. judged— and no* a day of 24 
hours, as some very foolishly imagine ! Christ is now judg- 
ing the world, and will continue to do so, until the final 
winding up of his administration. 

I do not say that the world was judged at the destruction 
of Jerusalem, nor at any other time ; this could not have 
been done, as my friend very rationally remarks, because 



58 



THEOLOGICAL DISCTJSSIQK. 



•"the world had not been born yet !"— but Christ came to 
judge the world at that time, and he will succeed in doing 
it^ before he quits judging ! Let Mr. Franklin give us a 
passage that speaks of the coming of Christ to judgment, or 
any thing about his judgment, and I pledge myself to show- 
that this 'judgment closes just where he thinks it begins! 
This, my friends, is the difference between us ! 

He would like to make you believe that because I say 
some judgments are past, and that Christ's judgment com- 
menced long ago, that therefore 1 believe in no judgment in 
the future ! But this assertion will not amount to any thing, 
and therefore I will let it pass, by simply remarking that if 
Christ's mediatorial reign has closed, then I believe in no 
judgment that is future, but not otherwise ! 

It does seem to me that if ever an individual made a com- 
plete failure, and was in duty and honor bound to yield up a 
matter in dispute, it is Mr. Franklin at this time! Truth 
and justice demand it of him. What has he done to estab- 
lish his proposition 1 Nothing — absolutely nothing ! And 
to show further to what lengths he is driven for argument, 
let the following example suffice. He says that inasmuch 
as Paul speaks of the coming of Christ at the resurrection, 
in 1st Thess.-- therefore we ought to believe that he meant 
the same thing in 2d Thess., where he speaks of his com- 
ing, or being ^revealed" in connexion with judgment ! No 
doubt my friend would like to have it so ; but the events are 
too widly different in time and character, for me to consent 
to any such interpretation — just to please him. The one 
belongs to the commencement of Christ's reimi — the other 
to the close of it. There is no doubt but the apostle speaks 
of a "coining" in both of these places ; but the circumstan- 
ces are widely different. In one he speaks of the resurrec- 
tion, but says nothing about judgment ; while in the other 
he speaks of judgment , but says nothing about the resurrec- 
tion ; and as judgment and the resurrection are never men- 
tioned in connection with each other, this fact of itself ought 
to be sufficient to convince any reasonable man that the apos- 
tle has reference to two very different events. 

1 have now noticed all the gentleman's speech that I deem 
worthy of attention. I hope in his next that he will give us 
some of his "strong reasons ; " and that he will also pay 



Christ's second coming, 



5? 



some attention to Matt. 24th — and especially to the phrase, 
this generation, I am anxious to know what he will do 
with this matter. Will he also show us how he reconciles 
the 42d and 31th verses of this chapter, with his idea of 
the "coming'? " [Time expired.] 



MR. FRANKLIN'S FOURTH SPEECH. 



Mr. Chairman : 

The gentleman allowed in his last speech that many things 
in my speech were irrelevant, and that he would not notice 
them. I am getting to understand him better than I -did at 
first. When I present something that he knows he cannot 
reply to, he pronounces it not relevant, and passes on. If 
it is to be regarded as a sufficient refutation of the argu- 
ments of an opponent, to say they are not relevant, I can 
very conscientiously say, that the whole of his last speech 
is a total failure, which is certainly as good argument, as for 
him to say my arguments are not relevant. 

I said that the language, that " Christ taught that he would 
come in judgment in the life-time of some who were living 
when he was on earth," is not in the Bible. In view of 
this my friend boasts, that he does not assert without know- 
ing whereof he affirms. But did he produce the language? 
He certainly did not. He simply referred you to Matt. 16 : 
.27, 28. How does he try to make out his case from that 
passage ? He does it by quoting both verses in one sen= 
tence, when they relate to different times, and to two different 
things. The 27th verse speaks of his coming in judgment, 
and rewarding every man according as his work shall be, 
and makes a full stop. The 28th verse takes up another 
subject altogether, and states that there were some present 
who should not taste of death till they saw the Son of man 



60 



THfiOLO&tCAL DISCUSSION* 



enter upon his reign, or, as stated in Mark 3 : 1, " till they 
have seen the kingdom of God come with power.'* There 
is not an intimation in the 28th verse that it alludes to the 
time when the things spoken of in the the 26th verse should 
be done. But it speaks of another matter altogether, and 
says there were some present who should not taste of death, 
till it should take place. 

Will the gentleman answer this question ? What part of 
the world does "every man," in the 27th verse include? — 
According to Universal ism, it could not include those who had 
died before that time, for Universal ists do not believe the dead 
will ever be judged. It could not include those who should 
live after the death of those who stood present at the time the 
words in question were spoken, for the coming and reward- 
ing both appear to be at the same time. But I shall dismiss 
this, till another part of my speech. 

Mr, Manford allows that, although I did not say any thing 
about two judgments, that I nevertheless believe in two, and 
kindly points them out to me. I do not know of any place 
in the Bible that states that the righteous go immediately to 
heaven, or that the wicked go immediately to the final place 
of punishment. Lazarus was carried to Abraham's bosom, 
and the rich man found himself in hades, but we have no 
account of their being judged yet. If there are more judg- 
ments than one spoken of in the Bible, after death, I do not 
know it, and therefore, simply believe in one. It is no dif- 
ference to me what the general opinion is — I am only to an- 
swer for myself. The gentleman still appears to think that 
the object of God's judgment is to decide who are the guilty, 
but God knows this all the time, and consequently could 
not judge men for that purpose at any time. 

I suppose my friend thought, I labored hard on the 24th of 
Mathew, simply because it was so hard for him to make his 
'reply; for I thought it was very easy to refute all he had 
said on that passage. He told you that I admitted that the 
coming of Christ was to be immediately after the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem. This is a mistake. I simply quoted the 
words of the Savior to show that the sign of the coming of 
Christ was not to appear in heaven till after the destruction 
of Jerusalem. On my remarks on the 22d verse, he says, 
I " have fallen into a slight error, here — -Christ is speaking 



christ*s sis C OKB CODING. 



si 



not of the destruction of the city, but of the " tribulation" 
that was to immediately precede it." After every Univer* 
salist that has ever written or spoken on the days mentioned , 
in that verse; has applied it to the destruction of Jerusalem, 
the gentleman now turns round, and says " Christ is speak- 
ing not of the destruction of the city," in that passage, but 
of the wars that were before that event, The " great tribu- 
lation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to 
this time, no nor never shall be," was not the destruction of 
Jerusalem! This is anew kind of Universalism. This 
does not surprise me any. I have long since known that to 
defend the doctrine of my friend, a man is compelled to 
run into numerous contradictions. This you will see fully 
made manifest before I get done with the gentleman's last 
speech. 

My friend ask3 the question, why should we not believe 
those who said " Lo, here is Christ ? " and answers, " be- 
cause there shall arise false Christs." Very good. There 
were false Christs there, but if any man should say, " Lo, 
here is Christ," (at the destruction of Jerusalem) " believe 
it not." Now if Christ actually did come at the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem, and was there, and any one said " Lo, 
here is Christ," why did he tell them, not to believe it ? — 
Mr. Manford says Christ was there, just as the Lord inti- 
mated the false teachers would say, and Jesus says believe 
it NOT. 

I could not but feel amused with my friend, in the very 
midst of his arguments to prove that Christ come at the de- 
struction of the devoted city, he paraphrases the Lord's lan- 
guage thus : *• You are to look up to the heavens for his sign, 
and see him coming in the clouds, with power and great 
glory." That is just what we have been telling our Univer- 
salist friends all the time ; hence the propriety of the ex- 
pression, " every eye shall see him." Did any one look up 
to the heavens for his sign, and see him coming in the clouds 
at the destruction of Jerusalem ? No, nor at any time since 
that event. 

In his former speech he declared most positively that the 
whole of the 24th of Matt., and the 21st of Luke, was ful« 
filled at the destruction of Jerusalem, but now a considera- 



THEOLOGICAL DISCFSSTGN. 



ble portion of the 24th of Matt, was fulfilled before the de- 
struction of Jerusalem ! Thus the gentleman can change 
his position to suit the times. Relative to the destruction of 
Jerusalem, \ have now shown that the Savior was not there, 
and that the sign of his coming was not to be seen till after 
that event, and the gentleman has now admitted that our Sa- 
vior, in speaking of his coming, taught that we should look up 
and see him coming in the clouds. This coming in the 
clouds has not taken place. 

The gentleman approached the words, "this generation 
shall not pass away till all these things be fulfilled," but the 
word generation means race ox family, and as the Jewish 
race or family has not passed away, the passage affords him 
no assistance. It is true the word generation, or the Greek 
from which it comes, has other meanings; but family or 
race is the first meaning, and the gentleman is not to assume 
some other meaning, and set aside the first meaning, with- 
out giving any reason for it, and then found his argument 
upon this assumption ! In the place then of finding any 
thing to sustain him in the 24th of Matt., he has virtually 
given up his doctrine. 

Mr. Manford, in his last speech said something about 
little things, but if his quible on the words " quick and 
dead," is not to be put down as a little thing, and that too, 
one of the least of all little things, I am greatly mistaken. 
When the apostle says, " I charge thee therefore, before 
God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick 
and. dead, at his appearing and kingdom," it does not mean 
the literally living and dead ! And why ? Because, then 
the people who are literally dead and are literally alive will 
stand before God ! And what of all that ? All that, and 
what the apostle said with it, does not say that they will be 
literally dead ivhen they stand before God, But he felt 
so conscious that he was ridiculing the very language of 
the Holy Spirit of God, that he could not leave it without 
apology ; and I have no doubt you all thought as he did, 
that it really needed one. 

Let us see how the gentleman will like his own logic— 
Some man says to him, the passage, 1 Cor. 15: 52, can not 
mean the literally dead ; for it says, "the dead shall be raised 
incorruptible ." and a dead man cannot be incorruptible, I 



CHUIST'S SKCOND COMING, 



63 



think he would begin to inform him that they shall be made 
alive when they are raised. The same will explain the pas- 
sage before us. They were the literally living and dead 
when Paul spoke, but of course the dead will be made alive 
before the judgment. But what was most weak of all, was 
the reference to Eph. 2: 1, where the apostle speaks of being 
"dead in trespasses and sins," to prove that 2 Tim. 4: 1, 
meant the same. According to this logic, it appears that as 
the apostle once speaks of persons being dead in trespasses, 
he must always mean dead in sins, where he speaks of per- 
sons being dead ! The gentleman admits that 1 Thess. 4: 
16, 17, speaks of the literally "dead" and "alive ; " yet the 
language is susceptible of the same ridicule of 2 Tim. 4: 1. 
The same is true of the resurrection of the just and unjust, 
and almost every passage where the resurrection of the dead 
is spoken of. 

It is admitted by all good authority, that words should be 
understood literally, unless a good reason can be given for 
departing from the literal signification. In the passage before 
us, as well as the one in Acts 10, where the same expression 
occurs, there is not the least indication of any thing but a 
literal use of the words "quick and dead," and therefore be- 
yond all dispute they mean the literal living and dead, who, 
the apostle declares, shall be judged at the appearing of Christ. 
Did he here speak the truth ? If he did, a judgment after 
death is established beyond dispute. The passage from the 
9th of Heb., where the apostle says, "after death the judg- 
ment," in so many words, my friend deemed it most safe not 
to notice at all. He could have done no better, for it is hard 
to prove that after death, means before death ! 

Mr. Manford quoted, with great emphasis, the words, "who 
shall judge the quick and dead at his appearing and king- 
dom" and then, in a few words afterwards, contradicted him- 
self by saying, "But this judgment, I affirm, was to be prior 
or before the coming of the Son of man to receive his king= 
dom, and establish his reign upon the earth." Now how the 
judgment can be at his coming and kingdom, and before his 
coming and kingdom, I am unable to see. Will he explain 
this mystery? 

I shall now call your attention to Mr. MM remarks on Rev, 
19th, 20th and 21st chapters. He put the lake of fire, the 



64 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION, 



judgment at the coming of Christ, and the descending of the 
holy city, New Jerusalem, from God out of heaven, all at the 
same time. Now keep this in mind, and if we can tell when 
one is to be, we can tell when the others are to be, for all are 
to be at the same time. This time, Mr. M. says, is at the 
beginning of the reign of God, or the setting up of the church. 
Now all Universalists refer the expression, "The Lord God 
will wipe away tears from off all faces," Isa. 25: 8, to the re- 
surrection state. I presume the gentleman has done so him- 
self fifty times. Well, this expression is quoted by John, 
Rev. 21: 4, and applied to the time when the holy city was 
to descend from God out of heaven. If, then, the time when 
the Lord God shall wipe all tears from their eyes, is future, 
the descending of the holy city is future. But let us read 
the verse : u And God shall wipe away all tears from their 
eyes ; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor 
crying ; neither shall there be any more pain : for the former 
things have passed away." Did all this take place at the es- 
tablishment of the church of Christ? Were all tears wiped 
away then 1 and has there been no more death since ? Was 
that an end to all sorrow ? Has there been no crying since I 
And has there been no pain for eighteen hundred years ? 

I had thought the apostles were in the kingdom of God on 
earth, or the church, when Paul said he prayed "day and 
night with tears," but if Mr. M. is right, he was not, for ail 
tears are wiped away in the church ! How then did it come 
to pass that Stephen was stoned to death, if there was no 
more death ? Did not Paul suffer great pain from the stripes 
that were heaped upon him ? And although the divine book 
says of the Ephesians, "they sorroiocd most of all" for the 
words which Paul spoke, that they should see his face no 
more, my friend, or some other genius of his party, is entitled 
to the honor of making the discovery, that at the establish- 
ment of the church, there w T as an end to all sorrow ! Univer- 
salism, what a jewel thou art ! 

Commentators have generally explained the Old Testament 
by the New, but my friend, it appears, explains the New by 
the Old. He makes Daniel explain John, in the place of ma* 
king John explain Daniel. No ' one needs his plan of inter- 
pretation, unless it be some one who prefers bewildering and 
darkening counsel, to the development of the obvious meaning 



criiiST*s SECOND COMING, 



o5 



of the word of God, But as my friend will have it that this 
judgment, new heaven, &c, was nothing but the establishing 
of the church, I shall proceed to examine the passage more 
particularly, beginning, Kev. 20: 12, "And I saw the dead, 
small and great, stand before God: and the books were open- 
ed ; and another book was opened, which is the book of life, 
and the dead were judged out of those things which were 
written in the books, according to their works/' All this, my 
friend allows, was at the establishment of the church ; but 
what evidence did he give that he is correct ? None what- . 
ever, We cannot take his bare assertion in so important a 
matter, especially where that assertion goes against the most 
clear and obvious meaning of a passage of Scripture ; and 
still more especially where his whole theory depends on the 
decision, Now there is not only no intimation that the apos- 
tle means any thing but the literally dead, but no other mean- 
ing will make the least particle of sense, 

We will suppose, however, that the apostle was speaking 
of those dead in trespasses and sins, or the spiritually dead, 
and see what kind of sense it will make. He continues, verse 
13, "And the sea gave up the dead which were in it;" that 
is, the spiritually dead which were in it ; "and death and hell 
delivered up the dead which were in them," that is the spirit- 
ually dead in death and hell; "and they were judged, every 
man, according to their works." And what follows ? "And 
death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the 
second death," Here is the destruction of death. When 
was it to take place? This may be learned from 1. Cor. 15: 
26. "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." — i 
This, all Universalists apply to the resurrection state. That 
is where I apply it, and John proceeds, immediately after tel- 
ling us of the destruction of death, Rev. 21: 4, to tell us that 
there, in the holy city, shall be no more death. The man 
who thinks to make this community believe all this took place 
in this world, is either a man of poor judgment, or must 
think the people exceedingly gullible ! 

Still speaking of the judgment, Mr. M. says, "One thing 
is certain ; it preceded the gospel dispensation. " But before 
he sat down, he said that I would like to make you think that 
he believes in no judgment in the future. If he does believe 
in any judgment ia future, I should like to know how he hap* 



06 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



pened to deny my affirmative proposition 1 I affirm that the 
coming of Christ to judge the world is future. This he de- 
nies, but still he is afraid you will think he believes in no fu- 
ture judgment! The judgment spoken of by Daniel, pre- 
ceded the establishment of the Church of Christ, and the 
establishment of the Church preceded the destruction of 
Jerusalem about thirty years, and Mr. M. says John and 
Daniel speak of the same thing. Thus you see that by ma- 
king these passages parallel, and putting one before the 
establishment of the Church, he puts both before it, and the 
establishment of the Church was more than thirty years be- 
fore the destruction of Jerusalem, Therefore he has deci- 
ded that Christ did not come at the destruction of Jerusalem, 
but had come long before that event. But the Church was 
established long before Paul wrote those epistles, in which 
he speaks of the coming of Christ as yet future, and my 
friend has contended, that the coming was at least sixteen 
years after the writing of those epistles ; but now the coming 
to judge was before the establishment of the Church ! How 
is all this ? 

He admitted in his first speech that my question from Acts 
3: 21, proved, that there will be no personal coming of Christ 
until the restitution of all things; and that Christ would 
come in person at the resurrection of the dead. In this we 
are agreed. We both admit that Christ will come in per- 
son at the resurrection of the dead. Every intimation I can 
find of judgment at the resurrection is directly to the point, 
for we both agree that the resurrection is future, and that 
Christ will come at the resurrection, and that personally. — 
If I can show that judgment to be at the resurrection, then 
I will show beyond dispute, that it will be at the coming of 
Christ. 

I have already tried to call his attention to John 5: 28, 29, 
but have failed to get him to give it any notice. I will try 
once more. In this passage it is asserted that "the hour is 
coming when all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 
and shall come forth ; they that have done good, unto the 
resurrection of life ; and they that have done evil, unto the 
resurrection of damnation, " No>v, there is not a pas- 
sage in the Bible that speaks more clearly of the resurrec- 
tion of the dead than the one I have just quoted. Jt states 



Christ's second coming. 



07 



distinctly that they were in the graves, that they would come 
forth, some to a resurrection of life, and some to a resurrec- 
tion of damnation. Here is the resurrection of the dead ; 
and consequently the coming of Christ ; and some arise to 
life, while others arise to damnation. Now, just as sure as 
this is a literal resurrection of the dead, just so sure is it that 
judgment will be at the coming of Christ to raise the dead ; 
and that it is a literal resurrection of the dead, or a resurrec- 
tion of the I iter ally dead, is most obvious; for there is no 
other resurrection from which persons come forth, some 
to life and some to condemnation. It will make the most 
ridiculous nonsense to say, the hour is coming in which all 
that are in the graves of sin shall come forth ; and to say that 
this coming forth is in this world or this state, for Univer- 
salists admit that all do not come forth from the graves of 
sin in this life, and that many die as great sinners as they 
ever were. And not only so, it would be the most abomina- 
ble nonsense to say, they that have done good while in a 
grave of sin, shall come forth to a resurrection of life, and 
those who have done evil while in their graves of sin shall 
come forth to condemnation. 

This passage from the lips of Jesus, divides those who are 
accountable, or who have done good or evil, into two classes 
after announcing the coming forth of all, and assigns each 
class their portion, or rewards every man according to his 
works. Paul predicted the resurrection of the just and the 
unjust, and the passage before us assigns each his portion, in 
the most clear and unequivocal terms. This never was set 
aside by a Universal ist, and never can be ; and while this 
passage stands in all its clearness and force against the doc- 
trine of my friend, all the arguments in creation from any 
other source can never establish it.. 

I 'have called Mr. Manford's attention to the "recompense 
at the resurrection of the just," Luke 14: 14, but, if my 
memory serves me, he has given it no attention; yet the 
passage refers to the same time, and the same thing as the 
rewarding every man according to his works, Matt. 16: 27. 
Both passages refer to the coming of Christ, both refer to 
the resurrection, both refer to the judgment, and both refer 
to the recompensing, or rewarding every man according to 
his works, 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



The apostle Peter says, "The Lord knows how to deliver 
the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto 
the day of judgment to he punished" 2 Peter 2: 9. This 
expression was penned about thirty years after the beginning 
of the gospel, and in the place of telling the disciples that 
the day of judgment had already began, as Mr. M. says it 
had, he told them that the unjust were reserved unto the 
day of judgment to be punished. Now, just so certain as 
the gospel day began before the uttering of this expression, 
just that certain it is, that Christ did not come to judge the 
world at the beginning of the gospel dispensation. And that 
the gospel day had began long before this time is evident, 
from the fact that Peter refers back to "the beginning,'' Acts 
11: 15. 

If Mr. ManfonTs notion is correct, that the judgment day 
did not begin till the destruction of Jerusalem, then there 
were about thirty-five years between Christ, the end of the 
law, and the beginning of the gospel ; and during that time 
there was no church, and there was no judgment, so that 
all that lived during that period had no church, and escaped 
judgment. But the apostle told them that the Lord knew 
how to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be 
punished. But he has stated that the judgment was before 
the destruction of Jerusalem, and that it began in a signal 
manner at the destruction of Jerusalem, Thus he is per- 
plexed in fixing the time. He has talked about those whom 
he represents as having two judgments after death. But he 
talks about many more than that, before death, yet he has 
failed to point to any thing, that may be called "the judg- 
ment." He admits that the destruction of Jerusalem is not 
"the judgment." And he has failed from the beginning to 
point to any thing, and call it " the judgment ; " yet he 
knows that the Bible speaks of something, and calls it em- 
phatically "the judgment." This judgment, as before shown, 
will be "after death." 

But I proceed to the language of Paul. "And the times 
of this ignorance God winked at ; but now commandeth ail 
men every where to repent: because he hath appointed a day 
in which he will judge the world in righteousness by that 
man whom he hath ordained ; whereof he hath given as- 
surance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the 



chsist's second coming. 



69 



dead." Acts 17: 30, 31. In this passage the r.postle alludes 
to the ignorance that obtained before the gospel, and says, 
that "in the times of this ignorance God winked at it, but 
now" since the gospel has come, 44 he commands all men 
every where to repent."- Why this extensive command? 
"Because he hath appointed a day in the which he will 
judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he 
hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all 
men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." The time 
when God commands all men to repent is now, in the gos- 
pel day, and the reason why all men should repent is 44 be- 
cause he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the 
world." The gospel day has come, and is called now, in 
the above language, but the day of judgment had not come, 
for the apostle said, he 44 will judge the world in right- 
eousness, by that man whom he hath ordained." Has my 
friend pointed us to any place where the world has been 
judged by that man ? Surely he has not, and most certainly 
he will not. He talks about a judgment that will do good, 
and a punishment of a disciplinary character. The judg- 
ment of which he speaks is of a very restraining nature, 
truly. In following him up to try to find his judgment, I am 
reminded of the boy who was told that if he would go to 
the end of the rain -bow, he would find a bag of gold ; but 
when he would fix his eye on the spot where it appeared to 
be, and go to it, and look for the rain-bow he would see it 
just as far ahead as at first, That is precisely the way Mr, 
Manford's judgment turns out, He will refer to the des- 
truction of Jerusalem ; but when I follow him to that point, 
he tells me that the "destruction of Jerusalem was not the 
judgment" Then he tells me that the judgment was before 
the destruction of Jerusalem, and then I pursue him to that 
point, he says it commenced signaUy at the destruction of 
Jerusalem. When I pursue him to this point, he denies say- 
ing that there will be no future judgment, and thus gives up 
the whole ground of dispute. He then turnaround and tells 
how I have failed ; but in what have I failed I Has he re= 
futed any argument I have offered ? Not one; every po- 
sition I have taken against him stands unimpaired, and ever 
must stand. 

As I have a minute or two yet, I will introduce one more 



70 



THEOLOGICAL DISCISSION; 



passage. " But why dost thou judge thy brother ? or why 
dost thou set at naught thy brother? for we shall all stand 
before the judgment seat of Christ. " Rom. 14 : 10. Does 
Mr. M. say that refers to some judgment in this life. If that 
is the meaning of the text, why did not the apostle say, we 
all stand before the judgment seat ? and not we all shall 
stand before the judgment seat. The apostle proceeds to 
prove that we shall all stand before the judgment seat. He 
says, " For it is written, as I live, saith the Lord, every knee 
shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess. " Where 
is that written ? Isa, 45 : 23. This passage all Univetsal- 
ists apply to the resurrection state, and that is precisely where 
it belongs; and this passage, Paul being judge, proves that 
we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ, and 
give an account of ourselves to God. The judgment of the 
world is then in the resurrection state, and "after death," as 
I think, must be manifest to all* [Time expired,] 



MR, MANFORD'S FOURTH REPLY. 



Respected Audience : 

I have asserted that Christ was to come in judgment during 
the life time of some who were living when he was on earth. 
This Mr. Franklin denies ; he says there is no such language 
in the Bible! To prove m^assertion, I quoted Matt. 16: 27, 
28. And what does he say to this ? Why, that the "com- 
ing" mentioned in the 27th verse, refers to a coming which is 
yet future — -while that in the 28th verse, he admits, refers to 
a. "coming" which was to take place within the lifetime of 
some who heard the words spoken. He says the two verses 
"relate to two different times and two different things." 
One of which he places in the future, and the other in the 
p as t — -some two thousand years apart, and for ought we 



Christ's second coming 



71 



know, ten thousand. Where in all the wild vagaries and 
theological curiosities, can we find any thing to go ahead of 
this! And he endeavors to reflect upon me for "quoting 
both verses in one sentence!" Now, does not the gentleman 
know that the division of the scriptures into chapters and 
verses, is but a modern thing ? — that they were not originally 
so divided ? And does he not know that these "two verses" 
were delivered by our Savior, "in one sentence" — probably 
in the same breath? Let us now read these verses again, 
just as they were delivered and originally recorded. "For 
the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with 
his angels, and then he shall reward every man according to 
his works: verily I say unto you. there he some standing here 
who shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man 
coming in his Kingdom." Now, I would like to know upon 
what authority the gentleman divides this passage of scrip* 
ture? (for I deny that there are two verses!) Who authorized 
him to "put assunder" what the Lord hath joined together? 
What evidence does he give us that the passage should 
be thus separated ? No authority — no evidence, but that of 
Mr. Franklin, alone! And why does he thus torture the 
scripture? Ah, the reason is obvious. In the first part 
of the passage, the Savior speaks of judgment— of "reward- 
ing men according to their works," in connexion with 
his "coming" — and therefore, Mr. Franklin must needs 
refer this much of it to the future. And notwithstanding the 
Savior continues right on to assure his disciples that he 
would thus come, before some who heard hirn, should taste 
of death, i. e. "within the lifetime of some who heard him" 
— and to explain to them what he meant by coming "in the 
glory of his Father," viz : coming in his kingdom. I 
say, notwithstanding all this, Mr. Franklin has the unblush- 
ing assurance to tell you that he, (the Savior,) alluded 
to another subject— to a dift^ren#time and a different thing!" 
A very easy way, indeed, to get round a difficulty ! The 
gentleman allows I have an easy way of explaining scrip- 
ture ; but I think he should say no more on this subject, 
after this ! In all my twisting and untwisting of scripture, I 
have no recollection of ever ^twisting a passage, quite 
so bad as he has done this ! 

My friends, whether Mr. Franklin really believes what he 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



says in regard to this passage, or not, is more than I can tell. 
It would seem that a man could hardly be in earnest, 
who would take such a wild and unwarrantable position ! 
But be this as it may, I am very sure he is wrong. And 
although it would seem almost unnecessary to go to the 
trouble of proving what appears already so evident, still, 
lest there be some in this congregation who may have 
doubts on the subject, or be disposed to favor the view of my 
opponent, seeing that he is at home and among his friends, 
I will give you some authority for saying what I do — not 
Universalist authority, but good Orthodox authority. And 
first I will give you that of Dr. Adam Clarke, the great 
Methodist Commentator: 

Clarke — "Verse 27. This seems to refer to Dan. 8: 13, 
14. 'Behold one like the Son of Man came — to the ancient 
of days — and there was given him dominion, and glory, and 
a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should 
serve him.' This was the glorious mediatorial kingdom, 
which Jesus Christ was now about to set up, by the dest ac- 
tion of the Jewish nation and polity, and the diffusion of 
his gospel through the whole world. If the words be taken 
in this sense, the angels or messengers, may signify the 
apostles and their successors in the sacred ministry; preach- 
ing the gospel, the gospel in the power of the Holy Ghost. 
It is very likely that the words do not apply to the first judg- 
ment, to which they are generally referred ; but to the won- 
derful display of God's grace and power after the day 
of Pentecost" 

"Verse 28. This verse seems to confirm the above explan- 
ation, as our Lord evidently speaks of the establishment 
of the christian church, after the day of Pentecost, and 
its final triumph, after the destruction of the Jewish polity ; 
as if he had said, 'some of you, my disciples, shall continue 
to live till these things take-place.' The destruction of Je- 
rusalem, and the Jewish economy, which our Lord pre- 
dicts, took place about forty-three years after this; and 
some of the persons now with him, doubtless survived 
that period, and witnessed the extension of the Messiah's 
kingdom ; and our Lord told them these things before, 
that when they came to pass they might be confirmed in the 
faith, and expect an exact fulfilment of all the other promi- 



Christ's second coming. 



73 



ses and prophecies which concerned the extension and 
support of the kingdom of Christ." Com. in loco. 

Thus writes the great Dr. Clarke. You perceive he 
had no idea of dividing the passage, making the first part of 
it apply to the future, and the latter part to the past. Now, 
as the Doctor believed in a future judgment, he undoubt- 
edly would have applied the passage, or a part of it to that 
event, if there had been any chance whatever, to do so. 
But I have some more authority at hand. 

Wynne. "Coming in his kingdom', i. e. coming to visit 
the Jews by the destruction of their city, of which some 
who were present should be eye-witnesses." Note in loco. 

Cappe. "The dissolution of Judea, Matt. 16: 27, is called 

the COMING OF THE SON OF MAN IN THE GLORY OF HIS FATHER 

with his angels." Critical Rem. 

Bishop Pearce. "This is meant of his coming to visit 
and punish the Jews, as in verse 25. See chapter 24: 30, and 
26: 64 — Dan. 7 : 13, and Rev. 1 : 7. John the apostle, (we 
know for certain,) lived long enough to see this coming 
of Jesus in his kingdom. See John 21: 22, 23." Com. 
in loco. 

Dr. Hammond. "Coming in his kingdom, The nearness 
of this to the story of Christ's transfiguration, makes it 
probable to many, that this coming of Christ is the transfig- 
uration; but that cannot be, because verse 27, the Son 
of Man's coming in his glory, with his angels to reward fyc, 
(TO WHICH THIS VERSE CLEARLY CONNECTS) 
cannot be applied to that. And there is another place, John 
21: 23, (which may help to the understanding of this) which 
speaks of a real coming, and one principal person (agreeable 
to what is here said, of some standing here) that should 
tarry or not die till that coming of his. And that surely 
was fulfilled in John's seeing the famous destruction of the 
Jews, which was to fall in that generation, (Matt. 24:) 
that is, in the lifetime of some there present, and is called 
the kingdom of God, and the coming of Christ ; and by con- 
sequence, here most probably, the Son of Man's coming 
in his kingdom is, his coming in the exercise of his kingly 
office, to work vengeance on his enemies, and discrim- 
inate the faithful believers from among them, &c." Annota- 
tions in loco. 



74 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION .- 



Knatchbull. " This place can scarce mystically be un- 
derstood, — by no means literally, but of the coining df the 
Son of man to the destruction of Jerusalem* who then may 
truly be said to come in his kingdom, when he came to tri- 
umph over his enemies, the Jews, by taking a severe and 
just vengeance of them. * * * * And that some of the 
standers by, when our Savior spoke those words, did remain 
alive to that very day, is true and known. And in this sense 
it is true — this generation shall not pass till all these things 
he Jul filled, chap. 24: 34. Neither before this time of his 
coming did the disciples go over all the cities of Israel, 
chap. 10: 23. And in this sense did John remain alive till 
Christ came, whereof see more, John 21: 22." Annot. in loco, 

Rosenmuller. " In this passage (ver. 27) reference is 
had to the propagation of the gospel through the whole 
world, and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish 
state, as we learn from verse 28." Scholid in verse 27. 

Lightfoot. "Our Savior saith, Matt. 16: 28, 1 There be 
some standing here, which shall not taste of death till they 
see the Son of man coming in his kingdom : ' — which must 
not be understood of his coming to the last judgment; for 
there was not one standing there that could live till that 
time: — nor ought it to be understood of the resurrection, as 
some would have it; for probably not only some, but, in a 
manner, all that stood there, lived till that time. His coming, 
therefore, in this place must be understood of his coming to 
take vengeance against those enemies of his, which 
would not have him rule over them, as Luke 19: 12-27. 
* * * * The j a y s tne time, and the manner, of the exe- 
cution of this vengeance upon this people, are called, 'The 
day of the Lord,' • The day of Christ,' 'His coming in 
the clouds, in his glory, in his kingdom.' Nor is this with- 
out reason; for from hence doth this form and mode ot 
speaking take its rise :— Christ had not as yet appeared but 
in a state of humility; contemned, blasphemed, and at 
length murdered by the Jews: his gospel rejected, laughed 
at, and trampled under foot ; his followers pursued with ex- 
treme hatred, persecution, and death itself. At length, there- 
fore, he displays himself in his glory, his kingdom, and 
voweu; and calls for those cruel enemies of his, that they 
may be slain before him.'' Ex-erc. in John 21: 22. 



CHRIST'S SECOND 60MIff.fl. 



75 



You see that all these commentators are against Mr, 
Franklin ; and not only against him, but understand the pas- 
sage the same as I do. And so it is, I may say, with all the 
commentators of any note. Learned authority, reason, and 
the common-sense meaning of the passage, are all against 
the gentleman. Does Mr. Franklin ask who these commen 
tatorsare? I answer, they are all eminent English divines* 
except Rosenmuller, who was a German— of the orthodox 
church, and believers in future and endless punishment. But 
I will give him the authority of one, before I sit down, of 
whom he has some knowledge, and whose opinion I pre= 
sume he will not be disposed to call in question, 

I have not said that there was no 44 church, " or "king- 
dom " on earth until the destruction of Jerusalem. I have 
said that the kingdom or reign of Christ did not " come with 
power "—that it was not fully and triumphantly established, 
until that time, And you will notice that here again I am in 
good company. The commentators that \ have just read 
say the same. They all apply the language of our Savior— 
"coming in his kingdom," or the 44 kingdom of God come 
with power," to the destruction of Judea. The kingdom, it 
is true, was in existence from the day of Pentecost, but it 
was not— and could not be— fully established until the de- 
struction 'of the old city and temple. The New Jerusalem 
was not fully established until the old was taken out of the 
way. This is what I have said ; and in this view I am borne 
out by the bast authorities. But I will now give you the 
opinion of one Alexander Campbell, a gentleman of whom 
Mr. Franklin has some knowledge, I presume. I read from 
44 Christianity Restored," page 174. 

44 But as the erection of the Jewish tabernacle, after the 
commencement of the first kingdom of God, was the work 
of some time, and of united and combined effort, on the 
part of those raised up and qualified for the work; so was 
the complete erection of the new temple of God. The 
apostles, as wise master builders, laid the foundation — pro- 
mulged the constitution, laws, and institutions of the King, 
and raised the standard of the kingdom in many towns, cities 
and countries, for the space of forty years. Some of them 
not only saw the 4 Son of man enter upon his reign,' and the 
kingdom of God commence on the day of Pentecost, and 



lb 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



carry its conquests over Judea, Samaria, and to the utter- 
most parts of the earth, but they SAW THE LORD 4 come 
with power ' and awful glory, and accomplish all his predic- 
tions on the deserted and devoted temple, city and people." 

Mr. Franklin has a good deal to say about seeing the Son 
of man coming. Here you perceive his great leader, Mr. 
Campbell, applies the very language in dispute to the de- 
struction of Jerusalem, and says some of the apostles lived 
to see the Lord "come with power " and awful "glory" 
and accomplish all his predictions on the deserted and de- 
voted temple, city, and people. If Mr. Franklin has any 
thing more to say on this subject, let him ask Mr. Campbell 
how the disciples could see the Son of man at that time ? 
They saw the Lord come, at the destruction of Jerusalem, 
says Mr. Campbell. But Mr. Franklin says he was not 
"there?" Please recollect this. I shall give you some 
more of Mr. Campbell's authority before I am through. 

Mr. Franklin passes over his two judgments very lightly. 
He says he " don't know of any place in the Bible that says 
the righteous go immediately to heaven or that the wicked 
go immediately to the final place of punishment." " Laza= 
rus," he says, " was carried to Abraham's bosom, and the 
rich man found himself in hades — but we have no account 
of their being judged yet." True enough. But Mr. Frank- 
lin understands this account to be literal, and a correct rep- 
resentation of the righteous and wicked * 4 immediately" after 
death. Now, I ask, how happened it that Lazarus went to 
Abraham's bosom, which we are told means Paradise I And 
why did the rich man " find himself in hades," which we 
are also told means hell 1 Did this just happen so 1 Sup- 
pose Lazarus had been " the rich man," and the rich man 
had been " Lazarus " — would their fates have been the same? 
Would Lazarus have been judged worthy of Abraham's bo- 
som, and the rich man deserving of hell ? No judgment in 
this case, indeed ! The gentleman could hardly have told 
us in plainer terms that he believed in " two judgments ! " 
Mankind, then, as soon as they die, or " immediately after 
death," are judged* either to Abraham's bosom or to hades ; 
and whether they go to heaven, and the " final place of pun- 
ishment," or not, is of no consequence, since the one is a 
place of happiness and the other a place of misery. This is 



Christ's second coming. 



7 7 



one judgment. But after a while— when all mankind shall 
have died off, or when these two places shall become full, 
we are told that Paradise and Hades will give up their inmates, 
and all will be assembled together, somewhere (?) and under- 
go another, and somewhat more formal judgment ! But as 
the gentleman tells us he believes in but one judgment, and 
as he acknowledges that he believes in the first one here 
mentioned, it is to be presumed that he has given up his no- 
tion of a general judgment at the resurrection ! If 1 am 
wrong here, I hope the gentleman will correct me. And this 
seems still more probable from the fact that he now admits 
that " the object of God's judgment " is not to 44 decide who 
are the guilty," for 44 our God," he says, 44 knows this all the 
time." 1 thought he would soon abandon this ridiculous 
idea of a general and formal judgment, as though it were 
necessary in order for God to find out who are guilty and 
who are not guilty ! The gentleman is progressing, and I 
have some hopes of him yet ! 

We come now to the 24th of Matt, again. The gentle- 
man is still disposed to quibble about little things, trying to 
make out that I have contradicted myself. Suppose he should 
show that I had actually contradicted myself in several in- 
stances — what would this fact do towards removing my argu- 
ments and proof-texts 1 He had better attend to the main 
arguments, and let minor matters alone, if he wishes to do 
himself any credit in this debate. But I tell the gentleman 
that I have taken no positions that are at variance with each 
other, although he may think so. He says 1 declared in one 
speech that 44 the whole of Matt. 24th and Luke 21st, was 
fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem," but have since 
said 44 a considerable portion of the 24th of Matt, was fulfilled 
before that destruction." Well, is there any contradiction 
here 1 None, I say the same still. But as the gentleman 
seems hard to understand, I will explain. Those chapters 
had reference to things connected with the destruction of 
Jerusalem and the Jewish polity— so much so that when 
that destruction was fully accomplished, it conld be said of 
those chapters, that they were fulfilled. Not that every thing 
in them had reference to the very day of that destruction— 
but at that time the last of the predictions was fulfilled — that is, 
nothing extending beyond, I have heard of men who were 



/8 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



troubled with what is called the 44 big head," but I think the 
gentleman exhibits stronger symptoms of the thick head than 
any thing else ! 

I showed very clearly in my last why Christ told his dis- 
ciples to "believe it not" when any should say, " Lo here is 
Christ, or there." It was to caution them against 44 false 
Christs." But Mr. F. still thinks that because Christ told 
them not to believe the reports that they would hear about 
his being 44 in the desert/' or 44 in the secret chamber," or 
44 lo here, or lo there," therefore he was not to come at all ! 
Suppose Christ did intend to come at that time, just as I con- 
tend, and as the great body of the learned contend, that he 
did come — would it not have been necessary and proper^ for 
him thus to have cautioned them ? Most assuredly. So the 
gentleman's objection is good for nothing. But Mr. Camp- 
bell, as we have seen, says Christ did come then, 44 in pow t er 
and awful glory" — -and that the disciples, or some of them, 
SAW him. Let my friend here talk to his illustrious leader 
on the subject, if he is not satisfied. 

But it is useless to follow the gentleman through all his 
crooks and turns; it is very evident that he could not reply 
to the main arguments in my last, and therefore he spent his 
time in quibbling about trifles. The greater part of my last 
speech stands unanswered — much of it not even alluded to. 
But I will not complain, for I think I can appreciate the gen- 
tleman's situation. 

In my last I dwelt upon the phrase, 44 tlite generation ," 
and said I would rest the whole matter upon this — at least 
until I heard from Mr. Franklin again. I will extend the 
declaration, and say I will rest the whole question in debate 
upon the meaning of this phrase, now and forever I True 
it is that Christ said his 44 coming in the clouds of heaven 1 
should take place during that generation, or before that gen- 
eration should pass away — for he said, Matt. 24 : 34 — 44 This 
generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled," 
and no one can deny that his 44 coming " was one of 44 these 
things," for he had just been speaking of that. This point is 
settled. But what does Mr. Franklin say about 44 this gen- 
eration?" Why, he says 44 the word generation means 
race or family r , and as the Jewish race or family has not yet 
passed away V he allows 44 the passage affords me no assist- 



christ's second comiNg. 



72 



anee." I humbly ask upon what authority the gentleman 
gave the word this meaning ? He says that "family or race 
is the first meaning of the word," and that I am " not to as- 
sume some other meaning, and set aside the first meaning." 
Now I affirm that family or race, in the sense which he at- 
taches to those words, is neither the first nor the last, nor 
any other meaning of the Greek word here rendered gener- 
ation ! The word never has such a meaning, and cannot 
have ! It means precisely what our English word generation 
means; and I call on the gentleman for proof before he goes 
any further. I cannot allow him to assume the meaning of 
this word — especially when there is so much at stake ; for I 
have said I will risk the whole matter upon its meaning, or 
the meaning of " this generation ." Let him bring forward 
his Lexicons to support him, if he can ; but recollect, if he 
fails here, he looses every thing ! I affirm that the genera- 
tion to which the Savior alluded has " passed" long ago ; 
and just so certain as it has passed, just so certain has the 
" coming of the Son of man in the clouds of heaven " passed 
— for he was so to come before that generation should pass. 
He has the affirmative of this question — let him proceed with 
his proof. 

I told you in my last speech what was meant by the "quick 
and the dead;" but whether I am correct, or Mr. Franklin, 
one thing is certain, ^Christ was to " judge the quick and 
the dead at his appearing in his kingdom." This the 
passage evidently asserts. And we have seen that he was to 
come in his kingdom during the lifetime of some who heard 
him. Matt. 16 : 28. And here I will add a note of explana- 
tion : I do not wish you to understand me to say there was 
no kingdom of heaven, or no church, on earth, till Christ came 
at the destruction of Jerusalem! The "kingdom" or 
" church " existed before that event; but what we are to un- 
derstand by Christ " coming in his kingdom " — his " appear- 
ing," "approach," "coming," &c, is, his entering]upon his 
reign — which is represented as his " coming in the clouds of 
heaven," in " power and great glory," &c. And here I must 
refer to Mr. Campbell again, as I know he is good authority 
with my friend : 

" It is very evident, that frequently the original word 
basileia [kingdom] ought in preference to be rendered m^?/. 



so 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



inasmuch as this term better suits ALL THOSE PASSA- 
GES where coming or approaching is spoken of : for while 
reigns or administrations approach and recede, kingdoms 
have attributes and boundaries which are stationary "-Chris. 
Restored, p. 151. 

When did Christ enter upon his reign ? When he came 
in the "clouds of heaven" to take vengeance on his ene- 
mies, the Jews, and to reward men " according t$ their 
works." Mr. Franklin calls on me to answer the question, 
" What part of the world does 6 every man,' in Matt, 16; 27, 
include ? " I answer, all those within his reign or jurisdic- 
tion , and no more. 

Mr. Franklin allowed himself to fall into another very 
great error, in regard to what I said about " judgment," in 
my last speech. He surely could not have paid very good 
attention to me! I said that the "judgment " mentioned in 
the 20th of Rev., about which he had made so much fuss, 
was prior to the coming of Christ. For, as he admitted, 
and I clearly showed, this judgment was the same as that 
which Daniel saw (Dan. 7,). And I showed, beyond all dis- 
pute, that the judgment which Daniel saw, was immediately 
preceding the "coming of the Son of man" to receive his 
kingdom, or enter upon his reign. But the gentleman must 
recollect that this was the "judgment of the Ancient of 
days" and not a judgment to be executed by Christ ! Here 
is where my friend is in error. I thought I stated this mat- 
ter plain enough. Christ had not yet received his kingdom, 
— had not entered upon his reign, when this judgment took 
place ; consequently, he was not yet constituted judge. It 
was only the "judgment" of the "Ancient of days," which 
I said was "prior or hefore the coming of the Son of man." 
Consequently, all he says about my "contradicting" my- 
self, by saying " the judgment was at his coming and king- 
dom, and before his coming and kingdom," is but moonshine ! 
— and only shows that the gentleman himself is confused ! 
There was a judgment before, and there was a judgment at 
" his coming" — but they were two different judgments. 

The gentleman tried to make out something, in regard to 
what I said about " the holy city, New Jerusalem," descend- 
ing at the commencement of the gospel dispensation. He 
thinks because John ? in describing the " Holy city ? " quotes 



Christ's second coming 



B1 



a pari of the language in Isa. 25: 8, which latter passage, 
he says, Universalists apply to the resurrection, that there- 
fore the 44 holy city" must refer to the resurrection, or the 
close of the gospel dispensation. Now suppose this were 
all true. What would he gain by it I The * 4 lake of fire," 
and the 4 4 coming of the Son of man," would still be at the 
commencement of the gospel dispensation — and, that I was 
mistaken in supposing the 44 holy city" descended at that 
time ! This is all. But he should notice that when Paul 
applies the language of Isa. 25 : 8, to the resurrection, he 
says, 44 Then will be brought to pass the saying that is writ- 
ten," &c. But although John, in speaking of the New Je- 
rusalem, quotes apart of Isaiah, or uses language similar to it, 
he does not say " then will be brought to pass the saying," &c, 
nor does he make arty allusion to Isaiah, nor intimate that 
he uses his language. He only uses similar language to 
that of Isaiah— and this is perfectly allowable. He may 
apply it to one thing, and the prophet to another. 1 still 
affirm, therefore, that 44 the holy city, New Jerusalem," de- 
scended at the opening of the gospel dispensation. 

The gentleman says 44 commentators have generally ex- 
plained the Old Testament by the New," but that I 4 4 explain 
the New by the Old." Here I am compelled to differ with 
the gentleman again. He has got the facts in the case en- 
tirely reversed ! I believe it is a general rule with com- 
mentators to explain the New by the Old ; and this, I con- 
fess, has been my plan — where any such assistance was 
needed. And that 1 am not entirely alone here, I must beg 
leave to refer to Mr. Campbell again. I hope the gentleman 
will not thinklam turning Campbellite ! In his 44 Christianity 
Restored," p. 143, Mr. Campbell lays down the following pro- 
position ; viz. — 44 That sacred history, or the remarkable in- 
stances of God' s providences to the Jews and patriarchs, are 
the foundation of the sacred dialect of the new institution. 
Or it may be thus expressed : All the leading words and 
phrases of the New Testament are to be explained and un- 
derstood by the history of the Jewish nation and God's gov- 
ernment of them." I was therefore correct in explaining 
John by lianiel. I shall have more use for this rule before 
I am done, although my friend does not seem to like it. 

I believe in 44 future judgment" — that is, in this world ; 
6 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION, 



but I do not believe that the " coming of the Son of man to 
judgment " is yet future ! That is the reason why 1 " hap- 
pened to deny " my friend's proposition. Christ came to 
judge, or entered upon his reign, near 1 800 years ago, and 
has continued to judge, and will so continue, till the close of 
his administration — consequently, some of his judgments 
are yet future. 

I repeat, I have never said that there was no church until 
Christ came at the destruction of Jerusalem ; consequently 
what Mr. Franklin says about the church being in existence 
thirty years beforp the destruction of Jerusalem, and that 
there was no church until Christ came at the destruction of 
Jerusalem, &c, trying to involve a contradiction — is all 
wide of the mark, and words spoken in vain ! Christ came 
in his kingdom at that time — entered upon his reign, though 
his church was in existence long before. 

The gentleman quotes Acts 17 : 31 — " he hath appointed 
a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness," 
&c., and asks, " Where is the proof that judgment will be a 
progressive work ? " And he right away speaks of " the 
gospel day," as having been in progress many years, when 
this language was written. Now, if the " gospel day " means 
"many years," may not this "judgment day?" This 
" day, " my friends, in which God has appointed to judge, 
or rule the world in righteousness by Jesus Christ, is the 
gospel day. Though the " gospel day," or church, had been 
in progress, in a limited sense, or incipient state, for some 
time previous, yet this judgment day did not commence till 
Christ entered upon his reign, and assumed the office of 
judge. Since then, it was to be co-extensive with the gospel 
day. This I hold to be the true meaning of the apostle. 
And I repeat again — the world was not judged at the de- 
struction of Jerusalem, but the "judgment of the world" 
commenced then, and has been going on ever since. I pre- 
sume there are some " in this assembly that can understand 
me, " if the gentleman cannot! 

The gentleman having failed in all his atte mpts, now turns 
to John 5 : 28, 29, as a last resort. Well, I must tell him 
that he is destined to fail here, also. He takes it for granted 
that the " resurrection " mentioned there, means the immor- 
tal resurrection, while it is very evident :bat the language 



CHRIST'S SECOND COMING, 



S3 



had no such reference, The Savior is undoubtedly speaking 
of a moral resurrection, as is evident from the connection s 
Verses 24 and 25, read, Si He that heareth my words, and be° 
lieveth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall 
not come into condemnation ; but is passed from death unto 
life. Verily I say unto you, the hour is coming, and now 
is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, 
and they that hear shall live." This refers to a moral 
resurrection, most unquestionably— and this will explain the 
^resurrection" mentioned in the 28th and 29th verses. 
Read also John 11 : 25 — " He that believeth on me, though 
he were dead, yet shall he live," — and Eph. 2 : 1 — " You 
hath he quickened, who were dead in tresspasses and sins" 
I will now paraphrase the passage, and you will then be able 
to see what it means : " Marvel not at this, for the time is 
coming (approaching, near by,) when all that are in the 
graves (or dead, as in verse 25) when all that are in a state 
of moral death, sleeping in false security — as is the whole 
Jewish nation — shall, by my voice in the thunder of my 
judgments, be roused up from that * state of inactivity, to 
action,' to a sense of their real situation; but they shall come 
forth to very different results, Those that have done good, 
have obeyed my gospel, shall come forth to a resurrection of 
life, shall be saved from their persecutions, and shall enjoy a 
more perfect and complete knowledge of my kingdom, and 
share more abundantly in its divine blessings, While those 
that have done evil — have rejected me and my gospel— shall 
come forth to a resurrection of condemnation- — shall share 
in the dreadful judgments coming upon this people and na- 
tion." This we conceive to be the true meaning of the 
passage. 

The only words in the passage that would lead any one to 
think it refers to the literal resurrection, are graves and 
resurrection. The first of these is never used in the New 
Testament in connection with the immortal resurrection, or 
as denoting the place of all the literally dead. Hades is the 
term used as the place of the dead. As to the word resur- 
rection, it has no necessary reference to the immortal resur- 
rection. It is so used, I admit; but Dr. George Campbell 
(not Alexander) says, " this is neither the only, nor the 
primitive meaning of the word. It denotes simply, being 



84 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

raised from inactivity, to action, or from obscurity to emi- 
nence, ox a return to such a state, after an interruption.'' 
" Rising from a seat" he says " is properly termed anasta- 
sis [resurrection] ; so is awaking out of sleep, or promotion 
from an inferior condition." Thus writes Dr. Campbell on 
this word. The gentleman has failed in his attempt to ap- 
ply this passage to the immortal resurrection. Bat were he 
to succeed, still it would not help him any ; for it says nothing 
about the " coming of Christ to judgment." He had better 
keep to his proposition, and to those passages which speak 
of the " coming of Christ to judgment." 

I agree with Mr. Franklin that Luke 14 : H, " the re- 
compense at the resurrection of the just " refers to the same 
time as " the rewarding of every man according to his 
works, " Matt. 16 : 27 — or to the commencement of Christ. s 
reign ; and also admit that it refers to the same event that is 
meant in John 5 : 28. 29. All this I believe ; but I have 
seen no evidence that " the resurrection of the just," in 
Luke 14 : 14. has any reference to the immortal resurrection. 
Christ said, " When thou makest a feast, call the poor, the 
maimed, the lame, the blind," and then assured his hearers 
that although these poor could not recompense them by giving 
them a feast in return, yet they should not lose their reward ; 
for they should be " recompensed at the resurrection of the 
just ; " that is. when the just shall be raised from the low 
and abject condition in which they now are, to a state of em- 
inence and prosperity — when they shall enter the kingdom 
of God, or of Heaven. This is evidently the meaning from 
what follows. One who sat by and heard Jesus, said. 
" Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God." 
Those who should make a feast, and invite the poor to eat 
with them, could not expect to be " recompensed" by those 
poor in the same way, but they should be " blessed " or re- 
compensed" by eating the bread of the kingdom of God, or 
the gospel kingdom. Christ, in speaking of the distinction 
that should be made between his followers and his enemies, at 
the time of his "coming to destroy " the Jewish state, badehis 
disciples, (Luke 21: 28,) when they saw the signs of his 
coming and the destruction of Jerusalem, begin to come 
to pass, "then look up, and lift up your heads, for your re- 



Christ's second coming. 



demption draweth nigh." This was "the resurrection of the 
just." 

Mr. Franklin finally quotes Rom. 14: 10, "for we shall all 
stand before the judgment seat of Christ"— and asks: "Does 
Mr. M. say that refers to some judgment in this life ?" Yes, 
I answer, most assuredly 1 do. The "judgment seat of 
Christ," is in his kingdom ; and when he entered upon 
his reign, he assumed the "judgment seat," before which, all 
within and during his reign, "stands," or are "manifest," for 
this is the meaning of the word rendered "stand." Paul said 
"we must stand," — did he mean any but christians % Let 
Mr. Franklin answer. But the gentleman thinks he has "got 
me" now, for he says Universalists apply Isa, 45: 23, 
•to "the resurrection state, precisely where it belongs," and 
that Paul refers to this language of the prophet in proof of his 
declaration, that "we shall all stand before the judgment seat 
of Christ." But I reply that my friend is mistaken, The 
judgment seat of Christ, does not extend into the resurrection 
state; it goes no further than his reign or kingdom, which 
closes at the resurrection. And so undoubtedly the language 
of Isaiah, applies : The time when "every knee shall bow, 
and every tongue confess," is limited to Chrises reign. It is 
during that that men must stand before his judgment seat, 
and it is within that reign that "every knee shall bow and 
every tongue confes," The gentleman has gained nothing 
by his criticism here ! 

I have only time to refer briefly to the passage in Heb, 9 : 
27, which I had almost forgotten. The gentleman applies 
this language to the future state, but here I must beg leave to 
differ with him again. The death mentioned there, I main= 
tain to be, not literal death, but the figurative or sacrificial 
death of the high priests under the law, the type of Christ's 
sacrificial death. This view the connection fully sustains; 
and it is dso evident from the very passage itself. The gen- 
tleman did not read it all ; let us read it : "And as it is ap- 
pointed unto men, (or these men) once to die, but after 
this the judgment ; so Christ was once offered to bear the sins 
of many." How was Christ once offered, to bear the sins of 
many ? As a sacrifice for sin. So was this death, which 
was "appointed unto these"— they died (by proxy) in their 
sacrifices, They entered the Holy of Holies— offered their 



S6 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



sacrifices —then, "after this/ ' returned and pronounced 
the "judgment," or justification of the people. So Christ 
was once offered to bear the sins of many. I have not time 
to pursue the subject in detail. But if you will take the 
trouble to examine the 8th and 9th chapters of Hebrews, 
in connection with the 14th and 16th chapters of Leviticus, 
you will see that I am correct. 

[ Time expired.] 



MR. FRANKLIN'S CLOSING SPEECH. 

Mr. Chairman : 

I now rise to close my part of the discussion on the first 
proposition, to which you have given such a respectful at* 
tention throughout this day. The question is not one in 
which I have become a disputant for mastery over the gen- 
tleman who is my opponent on the present occasion, but it 
is a question greatly affecting our conduct in this life, and 
one, as I solemnly believe, with which we shall be deeply 
concerned after death. It is a question touching the terrible 
judgment and spoken of with profound awe and veneration, 
by all the divine writers and speakers, and demands our 
most solemn attention, and, on the other hand, forbids any 
thing like a low quibble. 

I see there is one important difference between the course 
pursued by Mr. Manford, and that pursued by myself. If 
he can catch some irrelevant or incidental remark, upon 
which nothing important depends, but upon which he thinks 
some little capital may be accumulated; and thus cater to 
some popular feeling or prejudice, he is ever true and faith- 
ful to the task ; but the main points of argument, by me in- 
troduced, bearing directly upon the question, and those 
upon which I most confidently rely 9 he, as a general thing, 



Christ's second coming. 



87 



passes, with but little or no attention. On the other hand, in 
my notices of his arguments, I meet fairly and fully the 
very points upon which he most confidently relies. 

A few things in his last speech demand my attention a 
short time, before I proceed to recapitulate and close my ar- 
guments. The gentleman as usual, when he had nothing 
else to say, spent his time in reading Dr. Clarke, A. Camp- 
bell, Dr. G. Campbell and others. Now he is not willing to 
rely upon any arguments he is able to introduce himself, 
and in the absence of such arguments, he spends his time 
in trying to make this audience believe that those great men 
are with him, and thus gain their influence to support what 
those very men looked upon as the most silly and contempti- 
ble nonsense ever uttered . It is not strange that he should 
think to torture the word of God into the support of his miser- 
able theory, when he will twist the words of those great men 
into the support of Universalism, who we all know did not 
believe a word of it ! If he can prove that he is right from 
men who do not believe his doctrine, he may prove it from 
the word of God, when God believes no such doctrine ! 
But it is not my plan to be led off from the true issue, to de- 
fend Dr. A. Clarke, A, Campbell or any one else. Univer- 
salists have usually succeeded in getting their opponents off 
from the word of God, by introducing some favorite man 
before the people, that a long defence of what he has said 
may be made, and save Universalism from the lash. The 
gentleman dreaded my closing speech, and thought he would 
get rne off to defend A. Campbell. But I wish it understood 
once for all, that I am not to be led off in that way for all 
the garbled perversions he may make. 

The gentleman has got a new proposition. He says he 
has asserted, that Christ was to come in the life-time of 
some who were on the earth in his day. What if he has 
asserted that ? I have asserted, that "the coming of Christ 
to judge the world is future." This he denies. His negative 
assertion is that the coming of Christ to judge the world is 
past. But what has he done towards proving ft? I only 
assert what, the most of this audience well know, when I 
say, that he has done but little more than assert that he has 
proved this, that, and the other, a few dozen times. He has had 
the judgment to commence at the destruction of Jerusalem, 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



and the establishment of the church at the same time. He 
has then found the judgment before the destruction of Jeru- 
salem. He has then, in his last speech, admitted that the 
church was established at Pentecost, but it appears, that 
what the death and resurrection of Christ, the witness of the 
Holy Spirit, and all the apostles could not do in the church, 
for the space of more then thirty years, was finally more 
fully established by Titus and the Roman soldiers! My friend 
would make a good Mahomedan, as he believes in establish* 
ing churches by the sword. In this way he would force the 
grace of God to take effect ! ! 

I was perfectly astonished to see Mr. M. so confused by 
the few words I had said on Matt. 16: 27, 28, and especially 
to hear him, in the midst of that confusion, exclaim, as he 
did, "I deny that there are two verses!" Has the gentle- 
man lost his eye-sight? or forgotten what lie did know? 
He has all along spoken of two verses, but now he denies 
that there are two verses ! 

He kindly informs me that the division of the scriptures 
into chapters and verses is of modern date ! But that is not 
the point. The making of scripture is not of modern date. 
The Savior uttered his speeches in sentences, and ihe divine 
historians wrote in sentences; and the gentleman takes it 
upon himself to put two of the most distinct sentences he 
ever uttered together, and make only one of them. And 
then, exclaims, "what God hath joined together let no man 
put asunder." Why did he not quote more appropriately, 
and say, 6 'what E. Manford hath joined together let no 
man put asunder ? " God never did join these two verses 
together in one sentence. Mr. M. did it on his own re- 
sponsibility, and he did it too, because he felt it necessary 
to make this alteration in the word to save his doctrine. In 
this, he is right. An alteration must be made, in this passage 
of scripture, or it affords him no assistance whatever. 

It is not strange at all, that God should refer to the final 
judgment in the 27th verse, and then assure his hearers that 
the reign of God should commence before the death of some 
who then stood present, in the 28th. This is the true state 
of the case, and it requires nothing but candor and common 
sense application, to see that such is the case. In Acts 3: 
} 9, 20 we have repentance and conversion, which are in 



CHRIST'S SECOND COMING. 



&9 



this life, and the coming of Christ at the resurrection of the 
dead, as Mr. M. has admitted, all in the same sentence. — 
These two events, in thousands of instances, are almost as 
remote from each other as those in the other case. 

Mr. Manford tried to make the coming of Christ in his 
kingdom, or at the beginning of his reign, the same as that 
spoken of by Paul, 2 Tim. 4: 1. But you will recollect 
the coming in his kingdom, to commence his reign, had 
passed some thirty years, when Paul uttered the words to 
which I have just referred. Yet Paul speaks of it as a future 
event. He could not, therefore, have referred to the begin- 
ning of his reign. But if Christ came at the destruction of 
Jerusalem to begin judgment, all who lived and died 
from Pentecost to the destruction of Jerusalem, a space of 
some thirty-five years, were not judged at all. I ask then, 
how "the world" was judged ? The world was not judged 
at the destruction of Jerusalem, for the world was not there. 
The judgment did not commence there, else those who lived 
in the gospel dispensation before that time, were not judged 
at all ! ! I have called upon the gentleman to tell us when 
the judgment passed, if indeed it be*passed ! He finally ad = 
rnits that it is not passed, but that it is future, and thus gives 
up the whole dispute. 

You recollect the gentleman's paraphrase, or his altera- 
tion of John 5: 28, 29. I was pleased to see that he had so 
much good judgment, as to be sensible that such a plain and 
unequivocal declaration of the word of God would have to 
be altered before it could be harmonized with his doctrine, 
You, no doubt, concur with him in this opinion ! I do not 
admit that the 25th verse alluded to any but a literal resur- 
rection of the body. The hour had then come when the 
literally dead heard the voice of the Son of God, and they 
who heard literally lived. Nothing else will make any 
sense. Let us examine the gentleman's paraphrase. "All 
that are in their graves," according to the paraphrase, means 
•*all that are in a state of moral death." A state of moral 
death is an unconverted or sinful state in this life. With 
this explanation we shall proceed. All that are in a state of 
moral death, or a state of sin, in this life, "shall hear his 
voice, and shall come forth" Well, to come forth from a 
state of sin, or of moral death, is to hear the gospel and be v 



90 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



converted in this life ! This makes the Savior assert that 
all shall hear the gospel and be converted in this life. — 
That is a much better state of things than most of us 
thought had ever obtained in this world. But still Mr. Man- 
ford's make of scripture assures us that it is even so. But 
when they come forth from this state of sin, or moral death, 
what do they come forth to ? Why, those that have done 
good — those who have heard the gospel and obeyed it, while 
in a state of moral death or sin, shall some forth to a res- 
urrection of life, or be converted ! That is, those who were 
converted before, while they were in the graves of sin, and 
moral death, shall come forth, or be converted over again, 
more fully into the light of the gospel ! But those who have 
been so unfortunate as to have done evil while in a state of 
sin and moral death, or while they were sinning, shall come 
forth to the resurrection of damnation, or be converted to 
damnation ! Singular positions require singular methods to 
defend them ! Such is the ridiculous nonsense Universalism 
makes of the word of God. 

This passage is one of the most clear and literal expres- 
sions in all the Bible, arid I defy any man to find one text 
any where that more certainly refers to the literal resurrec- 
tion of the dead. The fact is first asserted that the hour is 
coming* and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of 
the Son of God, and they that hear shall live. But they 
are not to wonder that a few had heard the voice of the Son 
of God, as in the case of Lazarus and others, for the hour 
is coming when all that are in the graves shall bear his 
voice and come forth. 

My friend thought he saw a chance of escape, if this is a 
literal resurrection, for he says, nothing is said about the 
coming of Christ or judgment. But he cannot escape here, 
for he has already admitted that Christ will come in person 
at the resurrection. Therefore, it is conceded that this re- 
fers to the literal resurrection of the dead; it is also conce- 
ded to be at the coming of Christ. And as some were to come 
forth from the grave to condemnation, it must be at the 
judgment. From this no man ever did escape, or ever can. 
The passage, beyond all doubt, refers to the literal resurrec- 
tion of the dead, which he admits to be at the coming of 
Christ. This is future beyond all dispute. 



Christ's second coming. 



11 



I did barely succeed in getting the gentleman to pay a 
slight attention to the words of Paul ; "after death the judg- 
ment ; " but I could scarely see what he meant. Indeed, 1 
believe he simply aimed to leave the impression that "men" 
means the Jewish high priests, and that after death, was 
simply after the death of the victim offered. But I deny 
the whole position. There is not an intimation that the 
apostle meant any thing short of the literal fact, that "it is 
appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." 
He says "the death was figurative or sacrificial death of 
the high priests under the law." That was easy said, but 
who can prove it ? I know of no such death spoken of in 
all the Bible. 

Having now replied to all that I think deserving of my 
notice in the last speech, I shall proceed to recapitulate my 
arguments, and place them before you in as clear and in- 
telligible a manner as I can, and leave the matter for your 
consideration. 

1. My first argument was founded on 2 Pet. 3: 1-12. — 
While on this passage, it was shown that the apostle wrote 
only a few years before the destruction of Jerusalem, and 
some thirty years after the gospel dispensation commenced. 
Yet he refers forward to the day of judgment and the coming 
of Christ. This at once sets aside the idea of the coming 
of Christ and the commencement of the day of judgment 
being at the commencement of the reign of Christ. It was 
also shown, that " in the last days there were to come scof- 
lers, saying where is the promise of his coming? " I ar- 
gued that before, and at the time, of the destruction of Jeru- 
salem, in the place of false teachers saying, " where is the 
promise of his coming," they cried, " Lo here is Christ," 
and contended that " the coming of Christ was at hand;" 
and that our Lord commanded us to "believe them not;" 
and Paul commanded Christians not to let them deceive 
them by any means. I agreed that we have just such reli- 
gious doctors in our day, and that Mr. Manford is now virtu- 
ally continuing the enquiry, " where is the promise of his 
coming." If the exact fulfilment of a prophecy will show 
what time it refers to, we live in the precise time to which 
the apostle refers. This he has tried to escape, but he has 
failed . 



92 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



The melting of the elements with fervent heat, the heav- 
ens being on fire and being dissolved — passing away with a 
great noise, the earth also and the things that are therein be- 
ing burned up, are all predictions of too great importance to 
have gone by, without any one being able to point to their 
fulfilment on the pages of history. This I have called up- 
on Mr. M. again and again to do, but he has never done it.— 
I am certain he cannot, for they are not fulfilled. — 
In this chapter we have, " his coming," " the day of judg- 
ment, and perdition of ungodly men," "the day of the 
Lord," and " the day of God," all together, and all set forth 
in the most confident language of the apostle, as follows : 
" But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night ; 
in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise , 
and the elements shall melt with fervent heat; the earth al- 
so, and the works that are therein, shall be burnt up/' 

2. My second proof text was 2 Thess. 2:1,3. " Now 
we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, that ye be 
not soon shaken in mind, or troubled, neither by spirit, nor 
by words nor letter, as from us, as that the day of Christ is 
at hand. Let no man deceive you, by any means ; for that 
day shall not come ? except there come a falling away first, 
and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition." — 
This passage was written only a very few years before the 
destruction of Jerusalem, and some thirty years after the be- 
ginning of the reign of Christ, so that it forbids the idea of 
placing the coming of Christ at either of these points, for 
one was past and the other was at hand. As before observ- 
ed, the apostle forbids that any man should so construe his 
letter or spirit, as to say the day of Christ was at hand ; for 
he declares unequivocally, that that day shall not come, ex- 
cept there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be 
revealed. Mr. Manford here forgot that lie had made the 
coming of Christ at the beginning of his reign, or the begin- 
ning of the gospel dispensation, and began to contend that 
the destruction of Jerusalem was some sixteen years distant, 
and consequently was not at hand. But this position was 
taken from him, by showing that the destruction of Je- 
rusalem was spoken of frequently from a thousand to fifteen 
hundred years before, and that an event that had been look- 



Christ's second coming. 



PS 



ed for, so long a time, was emphatically at hand even when 
sixteen years off. At the very time then, when Mr. Man- 
ford says the coming of Christ icas at hand, Paul declared 
that day shall not come, except the apostacy come first. This 
apostacy, the apostle declared to he " the man of sin" — 
" the mystery of iniquity," whom the Lord shall consume 
with the spirit of his mouth, and destroy with the brightness 
of his coming. As long then, as the apostacy or the man 
of sin is not destroyed, you may feel assured, the Lord has 
not come, for he was to destroy him with the spirit of his 
mouth and the brightness of his coming. 

In the course of the argument, I quoted 1 Thess. 4 : 14-18, 
which Mr. Manford admitted to refer to the literal resurrec- 
tion of the dead, and the personal coming of Christ. I con- 
tended that the apostle gives no intimation that he speaks of 
any other coming in the second letter than he had spoken of 
in the first, and that the reason why he referred to it in the 
second was especially to correct them in thinking that the day 
of Christ was at hand. In making this admission, which 
by the way is a correct one, that the coming of the first let- 
ter will be at the resurrection, he has yielded up the whole 
question ; for there is neither reason nor plausibility in mak- 
ing the coming of the second letter a different one from 
that of the first. Indeed the apostle alludes to his former 
letter in the second letter, second chapter and second verse, 
and forbids that his former letter should be so construed as 
to say the day of Christ was at hand. This J regard as a 
triumphant argument, not affected in the least by any thing 
said in the negative. 

3. My third argument was founded upon Acts 8: 20, 21. 
"And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preach- 
ed unto you: whom the heaven must receive until the times 
of the restitution of ail things, which God hath spoken by 
the mouth of his holy prophets since the world began." In 
this passage it is asserted that the heaven must receive Christ 
until the times of the restitution of ail things, which God 
hath spoken^ which Universalists admit to refer to the resur- 
rection state ; but Mr. M. says that it refers to the personal 
coming at the resurrection of the dead, and admits that Christ 
has never come in the sense of this passage ; but to escape the 
difficulty, he says the coming in judgment is not a literal, 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



personal coming. To meet him here, I took the position 
that it must be the personal coming where every eye shall 
see him, and quoted the following passages : 4fc Behold, he 
cometh with clouds, and every eye shall see him, and they 
also which pierced him ; and all kindreds of the earth shall 
wail because of him," Rev, 1 : 7. 44 And then shall they 
see the son of man coming in a cloud with power and 
great glory." Luke 21 : 27. The lord himself shall de= 
scend from heaven." In addition to these clear expressions, 
Mr. Manford has admitted that the Savior taught them to 
44 look up to heaven and see htm coming in the clouds." 
Could 44 the Lord himself descend from heaven," and 44 ev« 
ery eye see him," and could all the tribes of the earth 
mourn because of him, at any but a personal coming? 

4. My fourth argument was founded upon Luke 21 : 24. 
44 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be 
led away captive into all nations ; and Jerusalem shall be 
trodden down of the gentiles until the times of the gentiles 
be fulfilled." The falling by the edge of the sword, spoken 
of in this passage, is no doubt the destruction of Jerusalem. 
The captivity of the Jewish nation among all nations, ex- 
tends up to the present time, beyond all dispute. The tread- 
ing down of Jerusalem by the geniiles, also, extends to the 
present time. The times of the gentiles, are not yet fulfilled. 
Well, after all this, he says, we k4 shall see the Son of man 
coming in a cloud with power and great glory." This pas- 
sage, the gentleman told us, without proving it, meant the 
same as the 24th of Matthew, and was all fulfilled at the de- 
struction of Jerusalem. I then showed that even the sign 
of his coming, as spoken of in Matt, "24th, was not till after 
the destruction of the city, and that the language of the Sa- 
vior relative to those who should say 44 Lo, here is Christ," 
forbids that we should believe it, which is the same as to de- 
clare that Christ ivas not there, and consequently that the 
coming referred to must be sought in some other direction. 
This argument still stands in all its force against any coming 
at the destruction of the city, and showing most conclusive- 
ly that the coming to judge the world is future. 

5. In the fifth place, 1 showed that Mr. Manford and my- 
self agree in several important points. We both agree that 
the scriptures speak of a coming to judge the world. We 



ghrist's second coming, 



95 



also both agree that Christ will come in person at the resurrec- 
tion. But he contends that the coming to judge the world is 
past and I contend that it is future. It is not material so far as 
.our argument is concerned, how many comings he may re- 
fer to in this world, unless he can find one which is emphat- 
ically the coming of Christ to judge the world. Nor does 
it avail anything for me to refer to a future coming, un- 
less I can show that if is connected with judgment. But as 
he admits a personal coming of Christ at the resurrection, 
any passage that I can refer to, showing that there will be 
judgment at the resurrection, will connect judgment and the 
coming of Christ, and will show that it is future. 

The first passage I quoted on this point was 2 Tim. 4: 1. 
" I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus 
Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead at his appear- 
ing and kingdom." This was written many years after the 
establishment of the church, and was in the future when 
Paul referred to it, and consequently could not have been 
his coming at the commencement of his reign. The apos- 
tle says, " who shall judge the quick and dead at his 

APPEARING AND KINGDOM." 

This can refer to no judgment this side of the resurrection 
of the dead, for the dead cannot be judged in the kingdom 
on earth. Mr Manford has attempted no escape on this 
point, only to quote Eph. 2 : 1,1" dead in trespasses and sin," 
and tells us that ki quick and dead " in the passage before us 
means the same. But he has no reason for saying so, and 
of course can give none. In connection with this, 1 quoted 
the following : " And he commanded us to preach unto the 
people, and to testily that it is he which was ordained of 
God to be the judge of quick and dead." Acts 10: 42. — 
This, as the passage first quoted, was pronounced " dead in 
trespasses and in sins," and this was the only effort made,— 
That these passages refer to the literally living and dead, is 
as evident as any position can be. They both then, in 
spite of all cavil > teach that Christ shall judge the dead, 
which cannot be in this life, and must be future. 

In the same argument, I relied on the unequivocal lan- 
guage of Paul : " It is appointed unto men once to die, but 
after this the judgment." Heb. 9 i 27. The only no- 
tice the gentleman has given this, is what he said in his last 



T HEOLOG 1C A L DISCtJSSI ON . 



speech, and even there he offered no argument, but simply 
asserted that it was the figurative or sacrificial death of the 
high priest. But he could with just as much propriety, have 
asserted that it meant any thing else. That the passage re- 
fers to the apointment of God for men once to die and after 
this be judged, is as clear and obvious as any thing can be. 
If you would put it into the hands of a thousand, who have 
never heard any dispute on the passage, they would all de- 
cide with one voice, that it meant literal death, nor can any 
one give a good reason for saying it means any thing else. 
What shows farther that it can refer to no death of the high 
priest, is the fact that the very next verse refers to the com- 
ing of Christ. We have here then, death, and after death 
the judgment and coming of Christ. If then, any language 
can establish a proposition, this language will estaulish mine. 
There was no coming of Christ connected with the whole 
service of the high priests, but in the passage before us a 
coming of Christ is spoken of, and it is declared to be after 
death : and what is to the point is, that it is a coming in judg- 
ment. This coming is future beyond all dispute. 1 have 
not gone into a lengthy refutation of my friend's positiou on 
this passage, such as I have frequently seen from others, be- 
cause I think his position so absurd as not to demand it. 

In order still more clearly and forcibly, if possible, to es- 
tablish the position that the world will be judged at the res- 
urrection of the dead and the personal coming of Christ, 
which Mr. Manford admits to be at the resurrection of the 
dead, I quoted the following : 

" And 1 saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, 
from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away, and 
there was found no place for them. And 1 saw the dead, 
small and great, stand before God : and the books were 
opened : and another book was opened, which is the book of 
life ; and the dead were judged out of those things which 
were written in the books, according to their works. And 
the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and 
hell delivered up the dead which were in them ; and they 
were judged every man according to their works. And 
death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the 
second death. And whosoever was not found written in the 
book of life was cast into the lake of fire. - ' Rev. 20 : 11-15. 



Christ's second coming, 



97 



In this passage we have a resurrection from the dead, de- 
scribed in the most particular manner. The sea gave up 
the dead which were in it. Death gave up those under its 
dominion. The unseen world releases up the departed spir- 
its, all, both small and great stand before God and are judg- 
ed. How is all this to be applied to those dead in sins?— 
Persons dead in sins, and alive in body, do not get into the 
unseen world. I have already shown that Universal ists ad- 
mit that death will be destroyed at the resurrection, and in 
this passage it is stated that death and hell were cast into th6 
lake of fire, Here then is the destruction of death at the 
resurrection of the dead, and John proceeds in a very few 
words afterwards, to inform us that there will be no more 
death. Here too, after the resurrection of the dead, we are 
informed that those not written in the book of life, are cast 
into the lake of fire. 

This passage bids defiance to all cavil. It represents the 
king as seated upon the throne, and the dead, small and 
great, assembled before him, and every man rewarded accor- 
ding to their works, Just so certain as this refers to the res- 
urrection of the dead, the judgment and the coming of Christ, 
are future, and will be at the resurrection of the dead, — 
What has Mr. M, done with this passage ? Nothing, only 
to assert in a kind of whole-sale way, as he he has generally 
done, when pressed, that it refers to the coming at the begin- 
ing of Christ's reign on earth, Thus he has John contem- 
plating judgment in the future, some sixty-five years after the 
beginning of the reign of God on earth. Yes, according to 
some of his doctrine, since the commencement of this de- 
bate, the judgment was past some sixty-five years with the 
coming of Christ, but John is looking; for it in the future. — - 
But the placing of it at the resurrection of the dead, which 
he admits to be at the personal appearing of Christ, fixes the 
whole question beyond all dispute, Mr. Manford became so 
alarmed by thenar of hell and the smell of brimstone while 
on this point, that he actually told us that the holy city that 
he speaks of in the same connection, where " there shall be 
no more death* nor sorrow, nor pain, and all tears shall be 
wiped away," was the church that was established on earth! 
When a man is driven to such an alternative as this, his case 
needs but little comment. It will be understood, 
7 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



As another proof on the same point, I quoted the following: 

"Marvel not at this : for the hour is coming, in the which 
all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come 
forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life, 
and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damna- 
tion." John 5: 28, 29. 

This is one of the most clear and plain passages in the 
whole bible on a literal resurrection from the dead, and as it 
refers to the resurrection of the dead, it refers to the personal 
coming of Christ ; and as some come forth to the resurrec- 
tion of life, and some come forth to the resurrection of dam- 
nation, it implies a judgment. We have here, then, the re- 
surrection, the coming of Christ, and judgment, altogether.— 
The only escape Mr. Manford has attempted on this passage, 
is to assert that this resurrection is from a state of sin. This 
I have sufficiently examined in the forepart of this speech. — 
On this point, my friend has been driven to say virtually that 
8S the resurrection unto life" is past, to escape a judgment to 
come. Yet, little as he has done with this passage, the fate 
of his whole theory hangs upon his effort. Just as sure as 
this passage refers to a literal resurrection, that sure his whole 
theory is ruined. No argument from any other passage can 
save it. What an effort for his entire system to hang upon ! 

While on this same paint, I quoted the following : KBtit 
when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, 
the blind ; and thou shalt be blessed ; for they cannot recom- 
pense thee, for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection 
of the just." Luke 14; 13, 14. 

I showed that the Savior here speaks of the "resurrection 
of the just," in almost the same words, that Paul does. Acts 
24: 15, where he speaks of "a resurrection both of the just 
and unjust." Yet. this latter is admitted by Universalists, to 
refer to the literal resurrection of the dead, but the former, 
Mr. Manford refers to a resurrection from a grave of sin, and 
contrary to the teaching of Christ, who only promised tribula- 
tion in this world, contends that the good will be recompensed 
at the resurrection of the just in this life ! Were it not for 
the 15th of 1st Corinthians, and one or two passages more, 
he would deny that a literal resurrection is spoken of in the 
whole Bible. Such is the issue that any man must inevitably 
be driven to, who denies that the coming of Christ is future. 



Christ's second coming. 



99 



Even "the resurrection of the just" must be tortured to mean 
something in this life, to escape a recompense at the resur- 
rection of the dead, as is clearly taught in this passage of the 
word of God. Yes, "the resurrection unto life" and "the 
resurrection of the just" must be explained all to be past, to 
save Universalists from the fear of hell ! 

I have shown by the similarity of expression, in the 24th 
and 25th of Matt., the 2 1st of Luke, the 15th of 1 Cor., and 
2 Thess., Heb. 9th, and other passages, that they all evidently 
refer to the same coming of Christ and the same judgment. 
Christ is spoken of in many places as being accompanied 
by all the holy angels, and this too in the same passages 
where the clouds of heaven are mentioned. Accompanying 
the same expressions, we find naming lire, and vengeance- 
being taken on them that know not God and obey not the 
gospeL Some of these passages connect the coming of 
Christ and the resurrection of the dead, and consequently 
you have all these various events connected together at the 
coming of Christ to judge the world. 

The plan of Universalism is to select a few passages where 
nothing is said about judgment or punishment, and call that 
a different coming, and a different resurrection from all the 
others. But no man ever did give a good reason for such a 
course, and no man ever can. The only reason for making 
two comings, is to try to escape hell. When men are driven 
to such a desperate course from the fear of hell, they certainly 
are troubled more icith fear than most men. 

7. 1 have called upon Mr. Manford again and again, to 
tell us what the judgment was. He has referred to a judg- 
ment which he allows was before the destruction of Jerusa- 
lem, but he would not say it was the judgment. He has 
frequently referred to the destruction of the Jews, but this, he 
says, was not the judgment. Well, what is the judgment I 
He has not, and he cannot tell what ! Still he, at times, 
appears cortain that it is past. Yet he admits that it is future, 
at times. I am therefore at a loss to know what he means by 
judgment. There is something spoken of emphatically in the 
Scriptures called the judgment. This event he has not re- 
ferred to, and will not. He need not refer to the destruction 
of Jerusalem, for this, he says, is not it. Where, then, or 
what is his judgment ? 

Lore. 



100 * THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION . 



When the Lord says, "we shall all stand before the judg- 
ment-seat of Christ," he did not refer to standing at any judg- 
ment-seat at Jerusalem, for he said it to those not concerned 
with what occurred at Jerusalem, but to those living in the 
city of Rome. Wonderful logic, this Universalian logic, tru- 
ly ! It would represent the Lord as threatening the Romans 
with judgment, with flaming fire, with vengeance, &c, &c, 
when he really meant nothing but the destruction of a city 
more than one thousand miles distant, from all of which they 
were in no more danger than a Friend Quaker here is from 
the taking of the city of Mexico ! What a bundle of non- 
sense ! See also the apostle writing to the Thessalonians, of 
the coming of the Lord ! Does he mean the destruction of 
Jerusalem ? What danger were they in from that event ? — 
The same is applicable to all the letters addressed to those 
churches remote from Jerusalem. 

Fellow-citizens and neighbors : You have listened with 
the most profound attention to the arguments I have offered 
to show that the coming of Christ to judge the world is future. 
In view of the solemn declarations of the word of God to 
which I have referred you, I am confident that you feel as 
certain that the coming of Christ to judge our race is future, 
as you do that the Bible is a revelation from God ; and when 
yau shall lay down your mortal bodies, you will feel the 
same assurance of judgment at the resurrection ©f the dead 
and the coming of Christ, that you do of a resurrection from 
the dead, 

You have heard what Mr* Man ford could say in opposition 
to this clear and explicit doctrine of the holy Scriptures, and 
you must feel satisfied that the evasions he has made are of 
a character too weak for an intelligent man to risk his repu- 
tation as a man of clear mind upon, to say nothing of the 
salvation of his soul. I am certain you will not receive such 
miserable contradictions and absurdities.. I am certain that 
you cannot harbor them in preference to the truth of God. 

I say then, that after giving the most careful attention to 
the study of the holy book in my power, for a goodly num- 
ber of years, I am compelled by honest conviction, and by 
every candid impulse, to assure you that we may most cer- 
tainly expect to be judged after death. What manner of per- 
sons ought we then to be in all holy conversation and godli- 



Christ's second coming. 



101 



ness, looking for and hastening unto the coming of the day 
of God. Let us not inquire " where is the promise of his 
coming 1 " but remember that "the heavens and the earth 
which are now are reserved unto fire against the day of 

JUDGMENT AND PERDITION OF UNGODLY MEN." 

[ Time expired.] 



MR, MANFORD'S CLOSING SPEECH, 



My Friends i 

The first thing I shall do will be to notice what Mr. Frank- 
lin said in his last speech, and also some things that he did 
not say ; after which I will proceed to a brief recapitulation. 

The gentleman continues to reiterate his stereotyped false- 
hood, (and he knows it to be such as well as you or I do,) 
that I am angry, I have remarked that he looks as shamed 
as a whipped dog when he comes to that place in his speeches, 
for he well knows that he is slandering me, and he also is 
well aware that you know it, The gentleman is well under- 
stood by this congregation. He tells that story only when he 
is "a used up man," sticking in the mud of partialism at the 
head of Salt River, Then, when he ought to be saying his 
prayers, he blazes away about my being mad ! I expect we 
shall hear that song through the debate, for it is a cry of dis- 
tress. 

I will notice what he said about my reference to collateral 
authority. He allows that when I have "nothing else to say 57 
I can spend my time "in reading from Dr, Clarke 5 A, Camp- 
bell, and Dr: George Campbell and others;' 9 and that I am 
" not willing to rely upon my own arguments,' 9 consequently 
that I " spend my time in trying to make this audience be- 
lieve that these great men are with me, and thus gain their 
influence to support what they looked upon as the most silly 



102 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



and contemptible nonsense ever uttered ! " &c, &c. Now, 
my friends, all this is easily enough said ; but will it be as 
easily believed by this audience ? 

In the first place, then, I remark that I have not been try 
ing to make this audience believe that " these great men * 
were Universalists ; every body knows they were not. Nei- 
ther have I tried to "gain their influence to support " Uni- 
versalism, or as the gentleman terms it, " what they looked 
upon as the most silly and contemptible nonsense ever utter- 
ed." The question is not Universalism ; but the coming of 
the son of man to judgment ; and on this question I have not 
simply been "trying to make you believe that these great 
men are with me," but I have been showing you that they 
are, without any doubt, with me — that they agree with me, 
and with Universalists, in the application of certain passages 
about which Mr. Franklin and I have been disputing. 

He says he is 44 not to be led off from the true issue to de- 
fend Dr. Clarke, A. Campbell, or any one else ! " Now be 
it known to the gentleman, and to this audience, that nobody 
wished him to be thus " led off," or to 44 defend" these men ! 
They need none of his defence! They can defend them- 
selves. He accuses me of 44 twisting the words of these great 
men into the support of Universalism," and of making "gar- 
bled perversions " from their writings ! I deny the charge, 
andliurl it back upon the author as being an imputation both 
false and wicked ! Why did not the gentleman show where- 
in I "twisted" their language, or made "garbled perversions?" 
He knew better ; he knew he could not ! I tell you now, 
right in the face of his false and contemptible imputation, that 
1 quoted all these men correctly — and this Mr. Franklin 
knows, if he knows anything about their writings. But it 
was easier for him to say what he did than to prove it ! 

But he says I am not willing (like him, I suppose,) to rely 
upon my own arguments, and hence 1 appeal to other men. 
But why did I do so? I will tell you. Mr. Franklin takes 
up a passage and says it means so and so — that it applies to a 
future judgment, for instance. I deny his application of the 
passage. He affirms that he is right, and wishes you to take 
his word for it. I affirm with equal assurance that I am 
right, and think that my word is as good as his. Now, to 
show you that he must be wrong, and that I must be right, I 



CHRIST^ SECOND COMING. 



103 



appeal to some half dozen eminent commentators and theolo- 
gians, and among them Alexander Campbell himself — believ- 
ers in future judgment and endless punishment, all of whom 
agree with me in the application of the passage in dispute. 
It is true I might rely solely upon my own arguments, for I 
believe that in every instance I have shown by incontrovert- 
ible argument, that my friend has misapplied his proof-texts, 
as well as other passages to which he has referred. But I wish 
to make "assurance doubly sure," so as to satisfy you be- 
yond all doubt that I am correct, and that the notion that 
Christ is yet to come to judge the world is not only without 
evidence, but is directly contrary to the plain word of God. 
The evidence of these men is the more valuable from the 
fact that they all believed in future and endless punishment. 
Had there been any way to apply those passages which speak 
of Christ's coming in judgment, &c, to the future world, 
consistent with candor and honesty, they undoubtedly would 
have done so ; but seeing and understanding their true applica- 
tion and meaning, they were too honest not to declare it. 
But why does not Mr. Franklin refer to commentators to 
sustain him in his views ? The reason is very plain — he 
cannot find any who will agree with him ! But then, in or- 
der to be even with me, he would have to quote from Uni- 
versalists to prove his positions. I quote from men on his 
side — from Partiaiists ; he should quote from men on my 
side — from Universalists. But this he cannot do ; and what 
is still worse for him, he can find but few, if any, even 
among his own commentators and writers, that will agree 
with him! This is precisely his situation. No wonder he 
makes a fuss about my appealing to commentators. Let 
him do so, if he can. 

In regard to the propriety of doing so, I ask if it is 
not done, more or less, in all debates in Christendom 1 See 
the* many debates between Mr. Campbell and his party, and 
their opponents, the Pedo-baptists. Mr. Franklin, I venture 
10 say, would not have such a repugnance to the testimony 
of commentators, if he could only find some who would tes- 
tify in his favor. This is the secret of the matter, my 
friends. But notwithstanding the gentleman's repugnance, 
I shall continue to quote from commentators and eminent 
theologians, whenever I deem it advisable, during the pro- 



104 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION, 



gress of this debate. I not only claim it as a privilege so to 
do, but I hold it to be my duty to let you know what 
other eminent divines say, besides Mr. Franklin and myself 
— and especially in regard to points on which he and I 
differ. I shall not ask you to take my word simply, but on 
all important questions between us, in regard to the meaning 
and application of certain texts, or the definition of certain 
words, I will sustain my position by the testimony of other 
and more eminent men. You can then judge between us. 

The gentleman next says, that he "only asserts what most 
of this audience well know," when he asserts that I have 
"done little more than assert that I proved this, that and the 
other, a few dozen times." He surely takes a good deal 
upon himself when he says this audience knows all this! 
Suppose I say this audience knows that he has done but little 
more than assert this, that and the other, throughout this 
whole day. Have I not as good grounds for saying so, as he 
has for his assertion? Where did you ever see a man who 
was better at making assertions, than my opponent ? And 
where did you ever hear more plain, unsophisticated, bald- 
faced assertions in the same length of time, than you heard 
from the gentleman during his last speech ? My friends ? 
this debate is going to be printed in a book, and you can then 
during your leisure moments, uninfluenced by excitement or 
prejudice, look over and review our speeches ; and if you do 
not then say that the gentleman's last speech caps the climax 
for "assertions" without proof, I am very certain you will at 
least say, that he should be the last man in the world to say 
any thing about other people's "assertions!" Policy, at 
least, would require that he should be still on this point ! 
But after all, my friend, you are to decide who deals most in 
assertions, and who in argument. I appeal to you 5 and 
those who may read our debate. 

But, the gentleman says I have "had judgment to com- 
mence at the destruction of Jerusalem , and the establish- 
ment of the church at the same time"— then I had judgment 
before the destruction of Jerusalem "—and then "in my 
last speech, admitted that the church was established at 
Pentecost," <kc s Now, I will tell you what I have "had ? " 
my friends. 1 have had a judgment — "the judgment of 
the Ancient of days." before the destruction of Jerusalem. 



Christ's second coming, 



106 



This was previous to the commencement of Christ's reign — 
the ''judgment to which Daniel, (chapter 7,) refers to, which 
took place before "one like the Son of Man came to the 
Ancient of days" to receive a kingdom. Then I had 
another "judgment" at the destruction of Jerusalem — and 
this was the first judgment under the Messiah's reign : 
the commencement of the judgment of the world, by the 
Son of Man. Previous to this time, God the Father had 
judged the world; then, and since then, all judgment was, 
and has been, committed to the Son. The difference be= 
tween us, is this: Mr. Franklin seems to have but one idea on 
the subject of judgment, and every time the word "judgment" 
occurs, he becomes frightened, and concludes that it means 
an awful judgment at the end of time, when all the de= 
scendents of Adam, will be assembled somew here or other in 
the vast universe of God, to hear their final doom ! While 
I, (and I think with some degree of rationality,) believe 
in many judgments ; that there were many very signal judg= 
ments, even before that dreadful judgment which resulted 
in the destruction of Jerusalem! and that these judg= 
ments were executed by the Father, except the latter, which 
was executed by the Son, and is denominated in scripture lan- 
guage, the "coming of the Son of Man, in power and great 
glory," "in the clouds of heaven," "in His kingdom," &c, 
&c; so called probably, because it was the first judgment 
under his reign. 

In regard to "the church" being established or in exist- 
ence previous to the triumphant establishment of " the 
kingdom," I read in my last an extract from Mr, Campbell's 
"Christianity Restored," showing that "as the erection of 
the Jewish tabernacle was the work of some time," "so was 
the complete erection of the new temple of God," &c, I 
shall have occasion to refer to this quotation again before 
I sit down ; but I beg to read another extract from the same 
book, (page 175,) which bears more directly on this point. 
"The communities," says Mr, Campbell, "collected and 
set in order by the apostles, were called the congregation of 
Christ, and all these taken together are sometimes called ihe 
kingdom of God- But the phrases, "Church of God" or con- 
gregation of Christ," and the phrases, "kingdom of heaven," 
or "kingdom of God ? " do not always, nor exactly represent the 



106 



THEOLOGICAL BISCUSSION. 



same thing.' ' So the gentleman should be careful and 
not confound "the church" and "the kingdom," when they 
do not mean the same thing. The church, properly so 
called, was in existence many years before the destruction of 
Jerusalem, but it was not until then that Christ come in 
his kingdom, or commenced his judgment ; and whenever 
Universalists speak of the church being established at the "de- 
struction of Jerusalem," or "coming of the Son of Man," they 
use the word church in the sense of kingdom, and not in the 
sense of congregation 

The gentleman next refers to Matt. 16 : 27, 28, and says 
he " was perfectly astonished to see me so confused by the 
few words he had said " on that passage ! Now, he could 
not have been more astonished than I was to hear him make 
this declaration ! Confused, indeed ! When have I exhibited 
any symptoms of being confused ? The man must be crazy 
from self-conceit, or else is perfectly reckless of what he 
says ! I have no consciousness of being confused from 
any thing he has said on this passage, or any other ; neither 
have I any fears that I shall be from any thing he may yet 
say, during this debate. He is particularly astonished that 
I should " deny that there are two verses," when I had " all 
along spoken of two verses." Does he not know that when 
1 spoke of two verses, I did so in conformity to the modern 
arrangement of the text into verses 2 — and that when I denied 
there being two verses in reality, I did so in reference to the 
original order in which the text was written ? Most assuredly 
the gentleman knew all this. For a man to talk as Mr. 
Franklin did, after hearing what I said on this subject, he 
must be somewhat deficient, either in conscience or under- 
standing! — Heave you to judge which. 

And now in regard to this passage in Matt. 16 — I ask in 
the name of high heaven, what has the man said? Not 
what has he said at which I should be " confused," — but 
what has he said in order to sustain his wild and unnatural 
position ? Take all he has said, from beginning to end, and 
put it together, and make as much of it as you possibly can, 
and I solemnly aver that it amounts to nothing more than a 
pitiful begging the question ! He says the 4 two verses, * or 
as the passage was originally spoken and written, the tico 
sentences, refer to two different events— the latter one to an 



Christ's second coming. 



107 



event which passed near two thousand years ago ! and the 
former one to an event which is yet in the future ! And what 
evidence or argument does he offer in favor of this position ? 
Why, first; It is so, because it is so ; and, second ; it is rea- 
sonable to suppose so ! And because I took it for granted 
that the man was in earnest, and went to work and exposed 
his unnatural and untenable position, and appealed to a num- 
ber of commentators to show you that I was not alone, but 
had the whole weight of orthodox authority on my side, why, 
he says I was " confused, " and that I was " not willing to 
rely upon my own arguments ! " How very contemptible is 
such a course ! 

But I deny his argument. I deny, first, that it is so ; and, 
second, that it is reasonable to suppose so! And here, in 
these few words I have offered as good an argument, and as 
much proof, as Mr. Franklin has in all he has said in favor 
of his position. 

But I proceed to remark, first, that facts are against him. 
1st. There are not 44 two verses " in the original text. The 
passage is composed of two closely connected sentences, 
spoken at the same moment, and in reference to the same 
thing. 2d. The first sentence, (or what is the 27th verse in 
the common version) does not refer to 44 the final judgment " 
in eternity, because there is no such judgment taught or 
referred to in the Bible. 3d. It refers to the same judgment 
that the second sentence, or 28th verse refers to, which was 
to take place, or commence, when the Son of man should 
come in his kingdom. 

Second. Reason and common sense are against him. The 
plain reading of the passage shows that but one judgment 
and one event is referred to in both sentences. Let us read 
the passage just as it occurs in the original text : 44 For the 
Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father, with his 
angels ; and then he shall reward every man according to 
his works. Verily I say unto you, there be some standing 
here which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of 
man coming in his kingdom/' Now, I venture the assertion 
that there is not one man in ten thousand, the world over, 
who, uninfluenced by preconceived opinion, would read this 
passage and come to any other conclusion than that the 
whole of it referred to but one and the same 44 coming." Not 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



an intimation is given by the Savior that a ]mrt of it refers to 
a coming which was then thousands of years distant, while 
the balance meant a coming which would be in the life time 
of some who stood by ! But on the contrary, the very nature 
of the language shows that but one event is alluded to. The 
fact is first declared, that the Son of man shall come in the 
glory of his Father, with his angels, &c, and then to make 
the matter appear more certain and definite, it is added : 
" Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here 
who shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man thus 
coming," or, which is the same, 44 till they see him coming 
in his kingdom." 

I remark, in the third place, that the amount of learned au- 
thority is against such a division of the passage. In my last 
I gave you the testimony of Dr. Clarke, Wynne, Bishop 
Pearce, Dr. Hammond, Knatchbull, Rosenmuller, and Light- 
foot — all orthodox commentators, — who understand both sen- 
tences as referring to the same event, and that the coming of 
Christ at the destruction of Jerusalem, T might have added 
as many more, had I deemed it necessary. But had I added 
the testimony of every commentator and learned divine in 
Christendom, it would have been the same with Mr. Frank- 
lin, What cares he for the opinions of other men ! He 
would have said I was confused, or angry, and was afraid 
to rely upon my own arguments ! But I tell the gentleman 
that the testimony of these 44 great men " forms a part of my 
argument. 

In conclusion. I remark, that no man can divide these two 
sentences and refer them to two different events, without 
doing violence to every rule of language, and to the plain 
word of God t This I maintain boldly in the face of the 
world, for I know I am correct, No man can offer the first 
shadow of a reason for such a division of the passage, except 
an anxiety and determined disposition to support the unrea- 
sonable, unscriptural, heathenish, hellish, and damnable no- 
tion of a general judgment beyond death ! And the most 
that ever has been said, or ever can be said, in favor of such 
a division, amounts to nothing more than a downright begging 
of the question ! — and begging it, too, in the face of facts, 
reason- common sense, and the weight of learned authority ! 
This is all I shall say on this subject. 



Christ's second coming-. 



109 



There is another point which Mr. Franklin, throughout 
this day, has taken for granted, which I unequivocally deny. 
It is that "the coming of Christ to commence his reign," 
took place on the day of Pentecost. Hence in reference 
to the passage in 2 Tim. 4: 1, "who shall judge the quick 
and the dead at his appearing in his kingdom," he says "the 
coming in his kingdom to commence his reigif had passed 
some thirty years, when Paul uttered these words." Now, 
the event which took place on the clay of Pentecost, is 
no where in the scriptures, called "the coming of the Sori^ 
of Man," nor "coming in his kingdom," nor "coming to 
commence his reign!" And in the entire absence of such 
language being applied to that event, and in view of the fact that 
this language refers to the "coming of Christ" at the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem, and is so understood by nine-tenths of the 
best commentators and theologians in Christendom, I have 
denied the gentleman's position. Nevertheless, he persists in 
taking it for granted that he is correct, as though nothing 
had been said, and without giving the first particle of evidence 
that he is correct ! I protest against such proceedings ! 
The coming of Christ in his kingdom, did not take place 
on the day of Pentecost ; and therefore the coming in his 
kingdom to commence his reign, had not passed some thirty 
years when Paul uttered these words! This event was 
still future at that time ; -and the apostle simply meant that 
when Christ should appear in his kingdom — should enter 
upon his reign, he would judge both the righteous and the 
wicked, Similar language is found in 1 Pet. 4: 17, "For the 
time is come that judgment must begin at the house 
of God ; and if it first begin at cjs, what shall the end be of 
them that obey not the gospel of God ?" This language was 
written but a few years before the destruction of Jerusalem ; 
and in the same chapter and but a few verses before, 
the apostle says : "But the end of all things is at hand, 
be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer." 

The gentleman says he has "called on me to tell him 
when the judgment passed, if indeed it be passed," and then 
adds, that I "admit that it is not passed, but is future, and thus 
give up the whole dispute!" Now, what an abominable mis- 
representation was this ! Have I not said all along that 
Christ's judgment was to be coextensive with his reign I and 



110 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION, 



that his judgment could not be passed, that is, completed, un- 
less he has closed his reign ? I showed very conclusively 
that one judgment was passed — the "judgment of the Ancient 
of days," which preceded the commencement of Christ's 
reign, and consequently the commencement of his judgment ; 
but the question, my friends, is not whether the judgment 
is passed or future, but whether the coming of Christ to com- 
mence his judgment, is past of future. This is the question, 
and I hope you will not lose sight of it. This coming I 
maintain to be past — that it took place when he entered upon 
his reign, and commenced his judgment by punishing the 
Jews ; but that his judgment will not be passed or completed, 
till he has finished his reign, and shall deliver up the king- 
dom to his Father. 

In reference to the passage in John 5: 28, 29, it is not ne- 
cessary for me to say much, or to go over the subject again. 
Sufficient was said in my last to show to any reasonable mind 
that this passage does not refer to the immortal resurrection. 
Take the passage in its connection, and compare it with Dan. 
12: 1, which is admitted by all commentators, theologians, 
and writers of any note to be a parallel passage, and you will 
have no difficulty in seeing that the event to which the Savior 
alluded, has long since transpired. In the 24th verse we 
read : "Verily I say unto you, he that heareth my word, and be- 
lieveth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not 
come into condemnation ; but is passed from death unto life." 
This language, as no one will dispute, must be understood in 
a moral sense. The next verse reads, "Verily, verily I say 
unto you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead 
shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear 
shall live." Here the same subject is continued — the same 
moral resurrection and moral life being intended, which 
no one who has any regard for his reputation, will deny. 
The Savior continues, and in verse 28 says, "Marvel not at 
this, for the hour is coming, (approaching, near by, for this 
is the meaning of the original) in which all that are in 
the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth, they that 
have done good to the resurrection of life, and they that have 
done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation." Let us 
now turn to the 12th of Dan. "And at that time shall Michael 
stand up, the great prince which standeth for the chil- 



Christ's second coming. 



111 



dren of thy people, and there shall be a time of trouble, such 
as never was since there was a nation, even to that same 
time; and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every 
one that shall be found written in the book. And many 
of them that sleep in the dust of the earth, shall awake, 
some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting 
contempt." — Dan. 12: 1, 2. This, undoubtedly, refers to 
the same thing, the same event that is referred to in John 5: 
28, 29 — so acknowledged by the whole theological world. 
Well, all we have to do, is to ascertain when this "time 
of trouble" was to take place, and then we shall know when 
this great moral resurrection was to take place. In Matt. 
24: 21, in direct reference to the dreadful calamities soon to 
come upon Jerusalem and the Jewish nation, we have 
the following language of the Savior : "For then shall 
be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning 
of the world to this time, no nor ever shall be." Here then 
is the same "time of trouble" alluded to by Daniel ; and 
at this time of trouble, this great moral awakening or resur- 
rection was to take place. Further comment is unnecessary. 

The gentleman's interpretation of Heb. 9: 27, 28, destroys 
the whole force of the apostle's argument. 

Let any one read the whole of that chapter, and he will 
perceive that throughout, the apostle draws the contrast be- 
tween Christ and his priestly office, under the new covenant — 
and the priests and their office under the old covenant. The 
whole chapter is devoted to this subject, and to nothing else. 
The apostle then closes the chapter in the following words : 
" And as it is appointed unto men {tots anthropios) once 
to die, but after this the judgment ; so Christ was once offered 
to bear the sins of many ; and unto them that look for him 
shall he appear the second time, without sin (or a sin offering) 
unto salvation." Now, how was Christ "offered to bear the 
sins of many?" Why so — that is, just as it was once "ap- 
pointed" for these men to die or to be "offered" in their sac= 
rifices. And as "these men," the priests under the old cov- 
enant, after offering their sacrifices and making intercessions 
for the people in the sanctum sanctorum, returned and ap- 
peared to the waiting multitude without, to them who were 
looking for them, and pronounced the "judgment," the de- 
cision or justification ; so Christ, after being offered to bear 



112 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION, 



the sins of many, and passed into the Holy of Holies, into 
Heaven itself, was to appear the second time (the same as 
these men, the priests, appeared) without sin unto salvation, 
to them that look for him. This matter is so plain that it 
seems to me no man who is blessed with a common under- 
standing can fail to see it! I have not time, neither is it ne= 
cessary, to argue this point any further. All I ask of you, my 
friends, is to read the whole of the chapter (the 9th of Heb s ) 
and I will risk your decision. Indeed, I would risk my whole 
faith upon the fact that the interpretation I have given is cor= 
rect. The passage, 1 affirm, will admit of no other inter = 
pretation. 

1 will now proceed to notice, briefly, by way of recapitula- 
tion, what Mr. Franklin has done during this day's debate, 
and what he has not done ; and we shall then be able to see 
how the matter stands. 

The gentleman's first argument was founded on 2 Pet. 3: 11, 
12— "Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what 
manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation 
and godliness ; looking for and hasting unto the coming of the 
day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dis- 
solved," &c= It was shown that not only the context but this 
very passage itself is opposed to the gentleman*s views, and 
not only so, but that it furnishes one of the strongest proofs 
in my favor. Let us briefly notice the context . The apostle 
commences this chapter by saying that he wrote this sec- 
ond epistle to put them in remembrance "of the words which 
were^spoken before" by the "prophets," &c., concerning 
"scoffers" — "knowing this first, that there shall come in the 
last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, saying, where 
is the promise of his coming? [Now why caution his brethren 
against these "scoffers," if there was no "promise of his 
coming" at that time or in their lifetime? Yes, why?] The 
next verse shows that these "scoffers" were then in existence. 
"For this they (the "scoffers") willingly are ignorant of" — 
not will be some two thousand years hence, but are now ig- 
norant. This same apostle, in his first epistle, (ch. 4: 7) says 
to his brethren, "but the end of all things is at hand ; be ye 
therefore sober, and watch unto prayer." Who did he mean 
by "ye," that were to watch for the 4 -end of all things?" And 
do not "the end of all things" and "the last days" refer to 



cubist's second coming. 



113 



about the same time? So much then for the gentlernan ? 3 
proof-text. 

Notice that the apostle is writing to his "beloved" brethren 
and to nobody else ; and also bear in mind that this epistle 
was written but a short time before the destruction of Jerusa- 
lem and the old economy : "Seeing then that all these things 
(of which he had just spoken) shall be dissolved, what man- 
ner of persons ought YE to be— looking for and hastening 
unto the coming of the days of God," &c. In the next versa 
he continues, "Nevertheless, we, according to his promise, 
look for a new heaven and a new earth, wherein dwelleth 
righteousness ; wherefore, my beloved, seeing that ye look 
for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in 
peace, without spot, and blameless." In the 17th verse he again 
warns them against the "scoffers," which he terms "the wick- 
ed:" "Ye, therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things be- 
fore, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the 
wicked, fall from your own steadfastness." In 1 John 2: 18, 
we have the following language : " Little children, it is the 
last time, and as ye have heard that anti-Christ shall come, 
even now are there many anti-Christs ; whereby we KNOW 
that it is the last time," This was written but a few months 
before the destruction of Jerusalem, and corresponds remark- 
ably with the admonition of the apostle Peter, which we have 
just read, The "last days," "last times," and "end of all 
things," must signify the same time, which were very appro- 
priately applied to the last days of the Jewish economy, and 
the end of all things belonging to the old institution, or the old 
heavens. 

But I must say something about the "melting of the ele- 
ments — the heavens being on fire and being dissolved — pass- 
ing away with a great noise — the earth and the things therein ^ 
being burned up," &c.,as Mr. Franklin thinks "these are mat- 
ters of too great importance to have gone by without any one 
being able to point to their fulfilment on the pages of history." 
Now, does not the gentleman know that all great commotions 
on earth, especially in which the Jewish people were concern- 
ed, were described by Jewish writers and prophets in just 
such language as this? In the language of Dr. Clarke on 
this subject : "The fall of Babylon is represented by the 
stars and constellations of heaven withdrawing their light Urn 

8 



114 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



and the sun and moon being darkened. See Isa. 13 : 9, 10. 
The destruction of Egypt, by the heavens being covered, the 
sun enveloped in a cloud, and the moon withholding her 
light. See Ezek. 32: 7, 8. The destruction of the Jews by 
Anticchus Epiphanes, is represented by casting down some 
of the host of heaven and the stars to the ground. See Dan.. 
8: 10. And this very destruction of Jerusalem (Matt. 24) 
is represented by the prophet Joel, ch. 2 : 30, 31, by showing 
wonders in heaven and in earth, darkening the sun, and turn- 
ing the moon into blood. This general mode of describing 
these judgments, leaves no room to doubt the propriety of its 
application in the present case." — Com. in Matt. 24. In con- 
formity, then, to the prophetic use of language, there is " no 
room to doubt, the propriety" of the apostle's use of such lan- 
guage in reference to the passing away of the old Jewish 
heavens and earth, and the establishment of the new heavens 
and earth, or the gospel dispensation, which is evidently all 
he meant by this highly wrought language. 

Mr. Franklin's next proof-text was 2 Thess. 2: 1, 3. This 
passage has been shown to favor my position instead of his. 
The very language of the text shows that the "coming of the 
Lord" was to be in the lifetime of those to whom it was ad- 
dressed. "Now we beseech YOU, brethren, by the coming 
of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto 
him," &c. Now, where the propriety of beseeching THEM 
by the coming of Christ, if that coming was not to be in their 
lifetime? The argument is conclusive, and I defy mortal man 
to avoid it ! But says Mr. F., "this language was written 
only a very few years before the destruction of Jerusalem," 
and because the apostle tells them not to "be troubled — as that 
the day of Christ is at hand," to "let no man deceive them 
hy any means, for that day shall not 'come except (or until) 
'there come a falling away first, and the man of sin be reveal- 
ed." Now, the very short time that this passage was written 
"before the destruction of Jerusalem" happens to be about 
sixteen years ; and the apostle might, and did, very properly 
tell them not to "be troubled," as though the day or com- 
ing of Christ was at hand. The whole of this language 
shows that they were looking for and expecting the com- 
ing of Christ in their day ; and the apostle very properly 
tells them not to be troubled, not to let anyone deceive them. 



CHRIST*S SECOND COMING. 



115 



neither byword nor by letter, "as from us," that is, as pur- 
porting to be "from us" — as that the coming of Christ is at 
hand. Before "that day," there was to come "falling away," 
and the "man of sin" was to be revealed. Mr. F. says the 
"man of sin" was the Pope. This idea is adopted occasion- 
ally by others, and was first conceived by the enemies of the 
Roman Church, without the first particle of reason or justice. 
A more ridiculous, unfounded, false, and wicked perversion 
and slander never was uttered ! Catholics have just as much 
right to apply that language to somebody in the Protestant 
church, as Protestants have to apply it to the Pope, or to any 
part of the Romish church ! That the apostle meant by 
"man of sin" something that was already beginning to mani- 
fest itself, or to "work," is evident from what he immediately 
says ; he goes right on— describes this "man of sin" in the 
4th and 5th verses, and then adds in the following two verses : 
"And now ye know what withholdeth, that he (the man of sin) 
might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity 
doth already work; only he who now letteth (or withholdeth) 
will let, until he be taken out of the way, and then shall that 
Wicked (the man of sin) be revealed, whom the Lord 
shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and destroy with 
the brightness of his coming." On this proof-text, therefore, 
the gentleman has made as signal a failure as on the first. 

I must not omit to notice a little of his argument here just 
to show you how he can argue one way at one time, and an- 
other way at another time, in order to suit the circumstances. 
I admitted that in first Thess. 4, the apostle speaks of Christ's 
coming at the resurrection. The gentleman thinks, there- 
fore, that he must speak of the same coming in second Thess .: 
"for," he says, " there is neither reason nor plausibility in 
making the coming of the second letter a different one from 
that of the first," Aside now from the merits of this argu- 
ment (!) I would ask, how much "reason and plausibility" 
is there in making the Savior refer to two different "comings" 
in a single passage, uttered in the same breath, not even di- 
vided by paragraphs or verses? This, you will recollect, Mr, 
Franklin did, in regard to Matt. 16: 27, 28. The first pari 
of the passage the gentleman says refers to a coming which 
is yet future ; while he admits that the other part of the pas- 
sage refers to a coming that has long since passed ! In the 



lie 



THEOLOGICAL DISCISSION. 



one case, two different letters, written at two different times, 
cannot refer to two different "comings ;" but here one pas- 
sage, spoken at the same time, can, without any "intimation" 
of the kind, refer to two very different "comings ! !" O con- 
sistency ! where art thou? 

The gentleman's third argument was founded on Acts 4: 
20, 21 — "and he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was 
preached unto you; whom the heaven must receive till the 
times of the restitution of all things." This, I admitted, 
referred to the literal and personal coming of Christ, at the 
resurrection of the dead. 1 denied that Christ was to come 
literally and personally at the destruction of Jerusalem, or to 
commence his judgment. But the gentleman says they were 
to see Christ coming to judgment, and quotes the passage in 
Matt. 24 — "and they shall see the Son of man coming in the 
clouds of heaven," &c, and other similar expressions. To 
this quibble I will reply again, simply by re-quoting a sen- 
tence from his great leader, Mr. Campbell: "But they saw 
the Lord 'come with power,and awful 'glory." and accomplish 
all his predictions on the deserted and devoted temple, city, 
and people." — Chris. Rest. p. 174. Let the gentleman ask 
Mr. Campbell, if he wants any further information. 

He next raised a quibble on Luke 21: 24. The Savior 
in this verse predicts the downfall of Jerusalem and the 
Jewish nation, and incidentally remarks that Jerusalem will 
be trodden down "until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." 
In the next two verses — 25 and 26 — he refers again to the 
"signs" that should precede the destruction of the city; and 
in the 27th verse suys, "and then shall they see the Son of man 
coming in a cloud with power and great glory" Then — not 
at the close of the Gentile dispensation, but immediately 
following those "signs" mentioned in the two preceding verses. 
The next verse shows that this "coming" was to be in the 
lifetime of those who heard him, for he tells them "when these 
things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up, your 
heads, for your redemption draweth nigh." It is strange 
that a man should resort to such glaring perversions of scrip- 
ture, merely to sustain a fanatic theory! 

Mr. Franklin has told you all along that the reign of Christ 
and the kingdom of heaven or of God commenced long before 
lhe destruction of Jerusalem. This position, as I told you 



cheist's second coming. 



117 



before , he assumed without the shadow of proof, as though 
no one disputed it ; while 1 have all the while denied it, Let 
us now read right on in this account of Luke's, verses 29, 31 
— "and he spoke to them a parable; behold the fig-tree and 
all the trees ; when they now shoot forth, ye see and know 
of your own selves that summer is nigh at hand. So likewise 
ye, [who?] when ye see all these things come to pass, know 
ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand." So then the 
"kingdom of God" did not come some thirty or forty years 
before the destruction of Jerusalem; they were to know that 
it was only "nigh at hand" when they saw the "signs" of this 
destruction '. 

Who cannot see that the "coming of the Son of man," 
the approach or the establishment of the " kingdom of peace," 
or "kingdom of God," and the "destruction of Jerusalem," 
are co-etaneous events, and were to take place, if not at the 
same time, in immediate succession to each other 1 This 
is an important declaration, and shows very clearly that the 
"kingdom of God" was not established until Jerusalem was 
destroyed, 

On the passage in 2 Tim. 4: 1, enough has been said to 
show that Paul had no allusion to a judgment in eternity, 
but that he had direct reference to Christ's coming in his 
kingdom, which was then but a few years in the future ; and 
that by "quick and dead," he only meant believers and un- 
believers. Enough has also been said to show that the gen- 
tleman is mistaken in his application of Heb. 9: 27, 28. 

As to the judgment spoken of in Rev. 20th — I showed 
conclusively that it was the same that was predicted in the 
7th of Dan., and, consequently, took place immediately pre- 
ceding the coming of the Son of man to receive his king- 
dom, or enter upon his reign, and hence is a past event. — 
John 5: 28, 29, has been sufficiently noticed. So indeed 
has all the arguments and passages which he has introduced. 
There are some things which he has not referred to which 
are deserving of notice. 

1st. I referred to several passages in the Old Testament — 
predictions of Christ, and of the establishment of his king- 
dom on the earth. Isa. 42 : 1-4, " Behold my servant 
whom I uphold, mine elect in whom my soul delighteth ; I 
have put my spirit upon him ; he shall bring forth judgment 



IIS 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



to the Gentiles, * * * he shall bring forth judgment unto 
truth ; he shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set 
judgment in the earth, and the isles shall wait for his law." 

And again : Jer. 23 : 5 — " Behold, the days come, saith 
the Lord, that I will raise unto Daniel a righteous branch, 
and a king shall reign, and prosper, and shall execute judg- 
ment and justice in the earth." These passages are direct 
predictions of the commencement of Christ's reign on earth, 
and they show that he was to set up, establish, and execute 
judgment in the earth. But the gentleman, for obvious rea- 
sons, paid no attention to them ! 

2d. I also referred to several passages in the New Testa- 
ment, which show that the time was then " nigh at hand " 
when Christ was to commence his judgment. Such as the 
following: "Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest 
ye be condemned ; behold, the judge standeth at the door." 
Jas. 5:9. " Who shall give account to him who is ready 
to judge the quick and the dead," — 1 Pet. 4 : 5. Also, Rev. 
14:6, 7 — "And I saw another angel fly in the midst of hea- 
ven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them 
that dwell on the earth, &c, saying with a loud voice, fear 
God and give glory to him ; for the hour of his judgment is 
come," dz^c. Here the " judgment " was to commence with 
the commencement of the gospel kingdom. Also, Rev. 22 : 
verses 7 — " Behold I come quickly" — 10, " Seal not the say- 
ings of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand " — 
12, " Behold I come quickly, and my reward is with me to 
give every man according as his work shall be " — 20, " He 
which testifieth these things saith, surely I come quickly. 
Amen, even so, come, Lord Jesus." All these passages 
were written but a short time before the destruction of Jeru- 
salem, and consequently but a short time before the coming 
of the Son of man to establish his kingdom. But the gentle- 
man has thought best to pay no attention to them. You are 
at liberty to judge, my friends, the reason of his silence. 

3d. I also called his attention to the admonitions of the Sa- 
vior to the disciples, to watch, and be ready for his coming ; 
and desired him to reconcile this fact with the idea that the 
coming was not to be for some thousand years in the future. 
But this also he was pleased to pass by in silence ! This is 
an important matter, my friends ; and so conclusive does it 



christ's second coming. 



119 



appear to my mind, that I believe I would risk the whole 
question on it. Take the 42d and 44th verses of Matt. 24th, 
and 1 defy mortal man to avoid the conclusion that Christ 
was to come- — and that he designed his disciples to so un- 
derstand him — during their lifetime. You will recollect 
that this discourse was delivered to the disciples privately* 
(verse 3d.) Now read these verses : " Watch therefore; for 
ye (who?) know not at what hour your Lord doth come." 
Again: " Therefore, be ye (who?) a'so ready; for in such 
an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh." Then 
they were to watch, they were to be "ready" — for in such 
an hour as they — the disciples — thought not, the Son of man 
was to come ! There is no getting away from this argu- 
ment. No wonder the gentleman passed it by in silence ! 

But the greatest failure the gentleman has made, and one 
by which he has lost every thing, is in relation to the phrase, 
"this generation," in the 24th of Matthew! You will re- 
collect that in the speech before my last, 1 called his atten- 
tion to the fact, that " all these things," the coming of the 
Son of man included, were to take place during that genera- 
tion. In his next speech he replied by saying that " this gen- 
eration," meant this family or race of the Jews, and that 
the Jews as a race had not yet passed away ; he also said that 
Greenfield gives this as the first meaning of the wordgejiea, 
and allowed that I had no right to depart from the first mean- 
ing ! In my last I denied his definition of the word, and al- 
so denied most unequivocally that Greenfield gave that ei- 
ther as the first or any other meaning of the word — which 
was equivalent to accusing him of misrepresenting Green- 
field. I then took the ground that the phrase, this genera- 
tion, never has such a meaning as he gave it, but that it al- 
was meems the " men of this age " — " those living at the 
time," &c, and that I would risk the whole question between 
us upon this issue. And what has he said in reply ? Not 
one word! ! I did expect that he would attempt a reply, al- 
though I knew he could not be successful. 

I will now tell you what Greenfield does say of this word, 
and all he says. He gives it but two meanings, viz : 1st "a 
family, generation, descent; 2d, an age, race, or generation 
of men, including upon the average, a space of thirty years." 
This is the definition he gives the word genea. Its first and 



no 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



primary meaning is, one family or household, one descent, 
or the offspring or children of one parent or parents — the 
descendents from one head. In its secondary meaning, and 
with regard to time, it denotes all the families or people liv- 
ing at that time, including as an average, a space of about 
thirty years, or three generations to a century. This is 
its length on an average ; but one generation taken sepa- 
rately, will extend much longer, so that there was no impro- 
priety in saying all these things would take place, before 
"this generation" closes, although the time might be more 
than thirty years distant. 

I will now give you the testimony of two eminent com- 
mentators on this phrase : 

Whitley. "These words — this age or generation shall not 
pass away — afford a full demonstration that all which Christ 
had said hitherto, was to be accomplished, not at the conver- 
sion of the Jews, nor at the final day of judgment, but 
in that very age, or whilst some of that generation of men 
lived ; for the phrase never bears any other sense in the 
New Testament, than the men of this age." — Annot. on 
Matt. 24: 34. 

Lightfoot. "This generation shall not pass, &c. Hence 
it appears plain enough, that the foregoing verses are not to 
be understood of the last judgment, but, as we have said, 
of the destruction of Jerusalem," — Exer. on Matt. 24: 
34. 

I must also add th3 testimony of Bloomfield, author 
of "The Greek Testament, with English Notes." He says: 
"Aa genea aute" — (this generation.) Notwithstanding the 
descent of some, the phrase can only mean "this very gene- 
ration," "the race of men now living." — Notes on Matt. i4: 
34. 

This is enough. Were there no other evidence in the 
book, the fact that the Savior said, "This generation shall 
not pass till all these things be ful filed, is sufficient to show 
that the Son of Man was to come in the clouds of heaven — 
in his kingdom — to establish his reign, and reward men 
according to their works, during the lifetime of some who 
saw and heard him. I will risk the whole question, yea 
every thing, upon this fact. The phrase, I maintain, never 



Christ's second coming. 



121 



had, never has, and never can have, any other signification 
than "the men of this age," or those living at the time. 

Now, my friends, in view of what' has been said on both 
sides, during this day's debate, you will excuse me, I hope, 
when I give it as my firm belief that, while Mr. Franklin has 
failed, most signally failed to establish his proposition, 
that the "coming of the Son of Man to judge the world" 
is yet future, I have proved by the most incontestible ev- 
idence, such as cannot be gainsayed, that this "coming 
of the Lord" is a past event. That it took place, as predicted, 
and looked for by the early christians, during the apos- 
tolic age, when the Jewish temple, city, and nation were de- 
stroyed, and the kingdom of heaven or reign of the Messiah, 
was set up in the earth. This I say, is my belief, in regard 
to the merits of the debate. But all I ask of you is, to 
examine our arguments, and the evidence adduced— weigh 
thern well, and then judge for yourselves. 



PROPOSITION II 



DO THE SCRIPTURES TEACH THE FINAL HOLINESS AJvD HAPFl- 
NESS OF ALL MANKIND ? 



MR, MANFORD S FIRST SPEECH 



Respected Auditors : 

The proposition before us to-day is one in which all are 
deeply interested. It reads as follows : Do the Scriptures 
teach the final holiness and happiness of all mankind ? 1 
affirm— my friend denies. I believe all the wicked will be 
saved. He believes some of the wicked will be saved. Nei- 
ther one of us believes any will be saved in their wickedness, 
but from their wickedness — " from their sins." He believes 
in the salvation of a part of mankind. I believe in the sal- 
vation of all mankind ; and here we join issue. 1 now pro- 
ceed to my first proof- text : Matt. xxii. 23 : 32. " The same 
day came to him the Sadducees, which say there is no resur- 
rection, and asked him saying : Master, Moses said, if a man 
die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and 
raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were seven bro- 
thers ; and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased ; 
and having no issue, left his wife unto his brother. Like- 
wise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh ; and 
last of all the woman died also. Therefore, in the resurrec- 
tion, whose wife shall she be of the seven ? for they all had 
her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not 
knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the 
resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, 
but are as the angels of God in heaven. But as touching the 



UNIVERSAL SALVATION* 



123 



resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was 
spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, 
the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob 1 God is not the 
God of the dead, but of the living." The parallel passage 
in Luke xx, reads as follows : 44 They which shall be ac- 
counted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from 
the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage : neither 
can they die any more , for they are equal unto the angels; 
and are the children of God, being the children of the resur- 
rection. Now, that the dead are raised, even Moses showed 
at the bush, when he called the Lord, the God of Abraham, 
and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; for he is not a 
God of the dead, but of the living ; for all live unto him" 
Our Savior did not merely answer the question of the Saddu= 
cees and then stop; but proceeded, 1. To show that there 
was a resurrection. 44 Now that the dead are raised, even 
Moses showed at the bush." 2. To inform his hearers what 
would be the condition of those raised. 1. They should not 
44 die any more." 2. They should be 44 equal unto the an 
gels." 3. They should be the " children of God." 4. 
They should 44 live unto God." 

It is worthy of especial notice that two distinct facts are 
predicated of the raised, because of their equality with an- 
gels. 1. They should not marry. 2. They should not "die 
any more." Hence we are justified in saying those raised 
will not sin or suffer, because of their equality with the an- 
gels. There is no way of escaping from this conclusion 
other than to say the 4 4 angels in heaven " sin and suffer ! ! 

I wish to call the attention of Mr. Franklin to the words, 
" they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world 
and the resurrection from the dead." How many does he 
think will 44 obtain that world? " (And it would be well to 
notice that the phrase 44 that world in the 35th verse is con- 
nected with the phrase 44 this world" in the 34th verse.) — 
Paul said he 44 hoped for a resurrection of the dead, both of 
the just and unjust." He did not hope that any would be 
raised unjust, for that would have been a most unrighteous 
hope indeed. Does my friend hope that any will be raised 
unjust ? If his hope is as extensive as Paul's hope was, then 
he must certainly believe that all will be 44 accounted wor- 
thy to obtain that world and the resurrection from the dead," 



124 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



That my proof-text triumphantly sustains my proposition 
cannot but be evident to all who will give it a fair examina- 
tion. If after the resurrection, the greater part of mankind 
are to be endlessly miserable, why did not our Savior say so 
when treating of the resurrection 1 Why did he never say 
so ? On the contrary he tells us that " in the resurrection/' 
that is, in the immortal world, mankind shall be " equal unto 
the angels" — "the children of God" — that they shall not 
"die any more;" and that all shall "live unto God."- — 
These are glorious announcements — heavenly truths ; and 
well worthy of that gospel which brings " good tidings of 
great joy, which shall be unto all people." 

My second proof is derived from the fifth chapter of Ro- 
mans. In this chapter we are told that "in due time Christ 
died for the ungodly," and "when we were without strength" . 
— that " God commendeth his love to us, in that while we 
were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then being 
justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through 
him : For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to 
God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, 
we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also 
joy in God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have 
now received the atonement," or reconciliation: "Wherefore, 
as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, 
and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." 
(If a natural death is here meant, then all are subject to this 
aeath, because all sin, and not because Adam sinned.) "For 
until the law, sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed 
wherever there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from 
Adam to Moses, even over those that had not sinned after the 
similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of 
him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the 
free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, 
much more the grace of God and the gift by grace, which is 
by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And 
not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift. For the judg- 
ment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of 
many offences unto justification." (Not of the Adamic of- 
fence only.) "For if by one man's offence death reigned by 
one, much more they which receive abundance" of grace, 
and the gift of righteouss shall reign in life by one, Jesus 



UNIVERSAL SALVATION* 



125 



Christ. Therefore, as by the offence of one, judgment came 
upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness 
of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of 
life : For as by one man's disobedience many were made 
sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made 
righteous. Moreover, the law entered that the offence might 
abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more 
abound; that as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might 
grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life, by Jesus 
Christ our Lord." 

From this passage we learn : 1 . That while men were yet 
"sinners, " and "enemies," God loved them. 2. That death, 
moral and spiritual, " passed upon all men," not because 
Adam sinned, but because "that all have sinned." 3. That it 
is "through the offence of one, many be dead," not because 
of the offence of one ; for that would contradict the expres- 
sion, "FOE that ALL have SINNED." All admit that 
, 'for" is here used in the sense of because. 4. That "the 
free gift is of many offences unto justification," and not of 
the Adamic offence only. 5. That if it be true "death pass- 
ed upon all men" because " all have sinned," then it is also 
true that "condemnation came upon all men," because "that 
all have sinned." 6. That "by the righteousness of one the 
free gift came upon all men unto justification of life," not 
because of the righteousness of one ; for I do not believe in 
imputed rightousness. Neither does my friend, I believe. 
7. That by or through "one man's disobedience many were 
made sinners.'" 8. That by or through " the obedience of 
one many shall be made righteous." 9. That " where sin 
abounded, grace did much more abound." 10. "That as 
sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign 
through righteousness, unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ our 
Lord." 

Although I have contended that the death here spoken of 
is moral and spiritual death, I have done so for the sake of 
truth, not for the sake of the argument, for that is equally 
strong whatever death is meant. I have contended also that 
it is "through the offence of one, many be dead," and 
not because of the "offence of one," still, if my friend should 
find that I am wrong here, it would not destroy the argument 
by any means. In the language of Dr. Adam Clarke we 



126 



THEOLOGICAL DiSCtfSSIOft. 



may say : "Thus we find salvation from sin here is as exten- 
sive and complete as the guilt and contamination of sin ; 
death is destroyed ! hell disappointed ! the devil confound- 
ed ! and sin totally destroyed ! ' ? 

On the 19th verse Parkhurst says : "The word many in 
this verse signifies the many ; i. e. the mass, the multitude, 
the'whole bulk of mankind." Dr. Mc Knight says, "for as the 
word many in the first part of the verse does not mean some 
part of mankind only, but all mankind, from first to last, who. 
without exception, are constituted sinners, so the many in the 
latter part of the verse, who are said to be constituted right- 
eous, mean all mankind ! from the beginning to the end of 
the world j without exception ! " 

No man is a sinner until he sins personally, so no 
man will be accounted righteous, until he personally practices 
righteousness. Hence, if as Paul avers, righteousness will 
extend as far as sin has extended, then all who ever have or 
ever will practice sin, must eventually practice righteousness. 
And when all men practice righteousness, what will prevent 
their being saved? Paul draws the parallel lines between 
the extent of sin on the one hand, and of grace on the 
other; and affirms that grace shall extend as far as sin, and 
even abound over it; so that at last all shall e'n&in righteous- 
ness and eternal life. 

My third proof text is taken from Rom. 8: 18, 23. "For 
I reckon that the sufferings of this present world are not to 
be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in 
us. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for 
the manifestation of the Son of God. Because the creature 
itself shall also be delivered from the bondage of corruption 
into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know 
that the whole creation groaneth, and travaileth in pain 
together until now, and not only they, but ourselves also, 
which have the first fruits of the spirit, even we ourselves 
groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, 
the redemption of our body." 

We learn from this passage, 1. That "the creature earn- 
estly expects and waits for the manifestation of the children 
of God. 9 ' 2. That "the creature was made subject to 
vanity." 3, That this subjection to vanity was made with- 
out consulting the will of the creature, 4 : That this subjec- 



UNIVERSAL SALVATION. 



tion was "in hope." 5. That "the creature shall be deliv- 
ered from the bondage of corruption." 6. That this deliv- 
erance is to be "unto the GLORIOUS LIBERTY of the 
children of God." 7. That the word "creation" most 
evidently refers to sentient and intelligent beings, from 
the fact that it is said to earnestly expeci; to "hope," 
to "groan," and to "travail in pain." 8. That those who 
had received the first fruits, (and this implies other fruits) of 
the spirit "groaned" with the creation. "Even we groan 
within ourselves waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemp- 
tion of our body." 9. That there is to be a redemption 
of "our body," that is, the body of humanity — "the whole 
creation." 

Blessed truth I The whole family of man shall be re- 
deemed from the thraldom of error and sin, and brought 
into the "glorious liberty of the children of God." Henry, 
Pool, and Macknight, and other good critics say that the 
word rendered creature and creation, in the passage under 
consideration, signifies "every human creature! all man- 
kind." Will Mr. Franklin be so good as to tell us what he 
thinks the word creation here does mean ? 

I now come to my fourth proof, Cor. 15: It appears from 
this chapter, that some among the Corinthians, denied the 
resurrection altogether. The apostle, in order to remove 
this misbelief and establish this most important doctrine in 
the mind of his readers, goes into a lengthened account 
of its extent, and its effects upon its subjects. 1. With 
reference to its extent, the apostle says : "For in Adam 
all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." 2. As 
to its effects we learn, 1. As those who are raised are raised 
in Christ, I am justified in saying that they will be raised 
free from sin. "If any man be in Christ, he is a new crea- 
ture." — 2 Cor. 5: 17. The phrase "in Christ," is used 
about forty times in scripture, and always applies to those who 
are justified from sin ! ! 2. Paul declares that as we have 
borne the image of the earthy (and all bear the image of the 
earthy) we shall also bear the image of the heavenly." 3. 
"It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory." 4. "It is sown 
in weakness, it is raised in power." 5. "It is sown in cor- 
ruption, it is raised in incorruption.." 6. "We shall all be 
changed," that is, "the dead shall be raised ineorruptable. 



128 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



and we shall be changed/' So much for the extent and 
effects of the resurrection; the former is universal, the latter 
glorious, sublime, holy. In the chapter before us, the tri- 
umphs of Christ, his kingdom and reign, together with their 
close, and their happy and glorious results are ail brought to 
view, presenting a consummation well worthy of a God who is 
love. 

I shall now notice some of these results and triumphs 
of his reign and kingdom. 1. He is to conquer death. 
"Death is swallowed up in victory." This agrees with 
the words of our Savior, when speaking of the resurrection, 
and of those who are raised. "Neither can they die any 
more." 2. He is to "put down all rule, all authority, and all 
power," (that is all opposing rule, authority, and power,) not 
even excepting the power of the devil. "That through 
death, he might destroy him that had the power of death, 
that is, the devil." — Heb. 2: 14. "For this purpose, (will it 
fail ?) was the Son of God manifested, that he might destroy 
the works of the devil." — 1 John 3: 8. 3. "The last enemy 
shall be destroyed — death." What will hinder the holiness 
and happiness of man ? if all his enemies are destroyed 1 
Can my friend tell ? 

4. " Ail things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the 
Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things un- 
der him, that God may be all in all ! / " After all have 
become subject unto Christ, then Christ is to become subject 
unto God. Hence the word subject, does not convey, here, 
any idea of misery, but of happiness. And all will be hap* 
py when they are subdued to the mild and peaceful reign of 
Jesus Christ. 

On the 26th verse, Dr. Clarke says, " Death can only be 
destroyed by a general resurrection ; if there be no general 
resurrection, it is most evident death will retain his empire. 
Therefore the fact that death shall be destroyed, assures us 
of the fact that there shall be a general resurrection ; and 
this is proof also, that after the resurrection, there shall be 
no more death f ! " " Death is swallowed up in victory." 
Hence the Apostle exclaims, " O, death, where is thy sting." 
And immediately he adds, " The sting of death is sin ! " 
What more, my friends, could be said I All that bear the 
image of the earthy, ar$ to bear with the image of the 



UNIVERSAL SALVATION. 



129 



heavenly. All are to be made alive in Christ ! ! All are 
to be raised in power ! glory ! ! and incorruption ! ! ! 

It will be observed that between these four proof texts I 
have just offered, there is not one jarring note, but the most 
perfect harmony; and each one reflects light upon the oth- 
er ; so that over the whole there rests a flood of light and 
truth, that can never be removed; and though the heavens 
and the earth may pass away, not one jot or one tittle of 
God's word shall pass away until all befulfiled; until the 
ransomed millions of the race of man shall unite in one 
general anthem of praise, ascribing praise unto God and 
the Lamb for ever and ever ! ! ! 

Strange as it may appear, some are displeased with such 
glorious results as those I have just mentioned ; such is the 
power and influence of prejudice and preposession on the 
mind of man. My friends, let us all endeavor to divest our 
minds of all wrong bias, and come to this investigation, un- 
influenced by any thing other than a strong and fervent de- 
sire to know and practice the truth, and with a fixed deter- 
mination to follow truth, lead wherever she may. If such 
is the purpose of our minds, much good may result. The 
great truths of the gospel may be brought more clearly to 
our view, and all interested and instructed. 

[ Time expired.] 



MR. FRANKLIN'S FIRST REPLY 



Respected Hearers : 

L agree with the gentleman, that the proposition under 
consideration, is one in which we are all deeply interested, 
with the proviso, however, that i am right. If my friend is 
mistaken, and his affirmative is insupportable, as he will cer- 
tainly find it to be, it is of incalculable importance that all 
9 



130 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



men should know it as soon as possible. But should his 
proposition prove true, it is of but little importance whether 
we debate it or not, or whether any body shall believe it or 
not. 

Without further ceremony, I shall proceed to read our 
proposition. It reads as follows : 

Do the Scriptures teach the final holiness and happiness 
of all mankind ? Mr. Manford affirms — I deny. 

Be it observed then, in the first place, that there is no pass- 
age in the Bible which says, " all men shall be holy." Nor 
is there any passage which says, " all men shall be happy." 
Nor yet is there any passage which says, "all men shall 
finally be holy and happy." This however, is what my 
friend is to prove. We shall see how well he succeeds. 

In his benevolence, the gentleman told you, that he be- 
lieved all the wicked would be saved, and that I believed 
that some of the wicked would be saved. So far as this 
statement relates to his faith, it may be very correct, but I 
most solemnly deny any such belief as he here ascribes to 
me. My Bible tells me, that " the wicked shall be turned 
into hell, and all the nations that forget God." Ps. 3 : 17. 
Paul speaks of the wicked, " even weeping," and says, " that 
they are enemies of the cross of Christ ; whose end is de- 
struction." Phil. 3: 18, 19. I do not therefore, believe 
with my friend, that "all the wicked will be saved," nor as 
he says I believe, " that a part of them will be saved," but 
with David, that "they shall be turned into hell," and with 
Paul, that their " end is destruction." 

He tells us, however, that they will be " saved from their 
sins." As the salvation he speaks of, is to be in the coming 
world, of course their sins are to follow them to the coming 
world ; and consequently he admits that they will be sinners 
after death, and consequently that there will be sin in the 
world to come. This, it appears to me, is rather a bad start 
to prove universal salvation ! ! 

The first passage introduced to prove the position of my 
friend, is the long-tried passage, Matt. 22 : 23-32, and its 
parallel, Luke 20. How the gentleman finds the proof in 
this passage, that all mankind will be made finally holy and 
happy, I can not discover. The words " all mankind " are 
not in the passage. The word " holy," is not in the text. — - 



UNIVERSAL SALVATION. 



131 



The word " happy," is not there. And the word "final," is 
wanting. Now, how does my friend prove, that " all man- 
kind will be made finally holy and happy," by a passage 
which does not contain any of the words, " all mankind," 
" finally," " holy," or "happy ?" 

This method of taking words spoken by our Savior, in 
reference to one point, and applying them to another, that 
was not before his mind at all, is not the most faithful and 
reliable method «f handling the word of God. Had the 
Lord been teaching Universalism, in the passage under con- 
sideration, he evidently could have expressed it as clearly 
as my friend has in his affirmative proposition. But his ob- 
ject was to answer a question propounded by the Saducees, 
who denied the resurrection of the dead. The object of 
their question was, to involve him in difficulty concerning 
the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. To accom- 
plish this object, they suppose one woman to have been the 
wife of seven brothers in succession, in this world ; and en- 
quired which one was to have her in the resurrection. To 
this the Savior answered : " You do err, not knowing the 
Scriptures nor the power of God. Fjr in the resurrection 
they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the 
angels of God in heaven." In what respect are they " as 
the angels of God 1 " Most certainly in this : that they 
neither marry nor are given in marriage. This is the precise 
point he has before his mind, and the precise point contained 
in the question propounded, and of course the subject must 
relate to it. 

My friend would represent the Savior as doing as he proba- 
bly would, in answering this question, viz.: as taking a flight 
off to something that did not at all relate to the point. But 
Luke recorded a clause that Matthew omitted, which throws 
some light on the subject. It is as follows : " But they 
which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and 
the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given 
in mariage; neither can they die any more; for they are 
equal unto the angels : and are the children of God, being 
the children of the resurrection. Lu. 20: 25, 36. Now, so 
much of the Savior's words as is given by Matthew, may 
relate in common to all men ; although I do not know that 
it could be proved; but if it does, there is nothing more said 



132 



THEOLO&ICAL DISCUSSION, 



of them, than simply that " they neither marry, nor are 
given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in Heaven." 
This comes infinitely short of proving that all will be holy 
and happy. But when we come to the words recorded by 
Luke, all difficulty is at once set aside ; for these words 
only include a certain class : " They which shall be ac- 
counted worthy to obiain that world and the resurrection of 
the dead. " Unless my friend can show that the words, 
" they which shall be accounted worthy.'' mean "all man- 
kind," I cannot see where he will get his proof. 

My friend seems to place great emphasis on the fact 
that Moses was shown at the bush that there would be a 
resurrection, and ihe remark that " he is not the God of the 
dead but of the living; for all live unto him." But how 
this does anything towards proving his position, 1 perceive 
not. I believe that there will be a resurrection as firmly as 
he does, and that "all live unto him," in the sense in- 
tended by the language of the Savior. But that you may 
see that I am not mistaken in saying that the words, " they 
which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world," make 
the blessedness of the resurrection state depend on our con- 
duct in this life, 1 will quote the Savior's words in another 
place, touching the resurrection of the dead, lie says : "The 
hour is coming in the which all that are in the graves shall 
hear his voice, and come forth ; they that have done good, 
unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil, 
unto the resurrection of damnation." John 5: 28. Again 
he says : "But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the 
maimed, the lame, the blind ; and thou shalt be blessed : for 
thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just." 
Luke 19: 18, 14. Now, that they "which shall be accounted 
worthy to obtain that world," "have done good," have fed 
" the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, " will " be equal 
to the angels, children of God, being children of the resur- 
rection," and "shall come forth to a resurrection of life," and 
"■be recompensed at the resurrection of the just," no believer 
in the Bible can doubt. But how different this from the doc- 
trine of my friend ! 

The gentleman wishes me to tell him how many will ob- 
tain that world. 1 can give him no better answer than the 
Savior has done. His answer is : "They which shall be ac- 
counted worthy." If he will, then, tell me how many will be 



UNIVERSAL SALVATION 



133 



accounted worthy, I can soon tell him how many will obtain 
that world. But the gentleman believes, unlike the Savior, 
that all will obtain that world, whether they are accounted 
worthy or not. 

He says : "It would be well to notice, that the phrase 'that 
world,' in the 35th verse, is contrasted with the phrase 'this 
world,' in the 34th verse." This is certainly correct, but 
how long will he stand to this himself? The Savior uses the 
same expression, Matt. 12 : 32. " Whosoever speaketh 
against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither 
in this world, neither in the world to come," Now, will he 
stand to his own explanation of "this world" and "the world 
to come?" We shall see. The matter now stands thus : 

1 . I have admitted that the words of our Savior, recorded by 
Matthew, possibly may include all in the resurrection, but in 
these verses he simply makes them "as the angels" in one 
respect : that is, they do not marry nor give in marriage, 

2. I have shown that the words recorded in Luke specify a 
certain class, by the words " they which shall be accounted 
worthy," who are to be equal unto the angels, children of 
God, being children of the resurrection. This has been 
shown to be correct, by reference to the Savior's words? 
touching the resurrection, where he says, " they that have 
done good shall come forth to a resurrection of life," and they 
"who have fed the poor, shall be recompensed at the resur- 
rection of the just." 3. It has been further shown, that in 
my friend's admitting thatthe phrases, "this world," and "that 
world," contrast the present and future states ; that he has 
admitted that those who shall speak against the Holy Spirit, 
shall not be forgiven, in the present nor the future state. In 
the place then of proving his position, he has involved the 
whole fabric of Universalism in inextricable difficulty. 

2. The gentleman's second proof-text is found in the fifth 
chapter of Romans. But this, I think, lie will find an unfor- 
tunate proof-text for Universalism. In the 8th verse, the 
apostle says : "God commendeth his love toward us, in that 
while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." The persons 
of whom the apostle here speaks had been sinners; but in the 
9th verse they are said to be "now justified by his blood," and 
"saved from wrath through him." Here he says : "For if, 
when we were enemies we were reconciled to God, by the 



134 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



the death of his Son." They were already justified, recon- 
ciled, and saved when the apostle spoke to them . Upon this 
present justification, salvation or reconciliation, the apostle 
makes future salvation, through the life of Christ depend. — 
"For," says he, "if when we were enemies we were recon- 
ciled," in the past tense ; not will be reconciled, but " were 
reconciled." Well, Paul, what if we were reconciled] — 
He answered : "Much more, being reconciled, we shall be 
saved by his life." Verse 10. Now, my friend will not 
say that all mankind are justified, saved, and reconciled in 
this life ; yet the apostle has a promise of "much more" in 
the future world for those who were justified, saved and re- 
conciled in this life. Present justification, salvation, reconcil- 
iation, through the blood of Christ, are obtained by repenting 
and turning to God in this world. The apostle, then, teaches 
that if we are thus justified, saved, and reconciled in this 
life, "we shall [future tense] be saved by his life." This ac- 
cords with my friend's statement in his speech. He said 
"justification was through righteousness." Of course it must 
be righteousness in this life, for he does not believe that any 
will be in the eternal world unjustified, and have to be justi- 
fied through righteousness there ! 

What goes to prove that I am correct in this, is the fact 
that my friend said he "did not believe in imputed righteous- 
ness." By this statement he has involved Universalism in a 
pretty predicament truly ! They are saved "through righte- 
ousness," he says, but he "does not believe in imputed right- 
eousness." All must be saved by their own righteousness; 
and if they die unrighteous, they go into the future world un- 
righteous, and consequently unsaved, until they are justified 
through their own righteousness. Your future salvation is, 
therefore, emphatically a salvation by works. This is a splen- 
did move truly to prove that all will be saved ! But if the 
gentleman will turn over to the 6th chapter, 17th and 18th 
verses, he will find that the disciples at Rome were justified 
through righteousness, by "ob&ying, from the heart, that form 
of doctrine which was delivered them," and being then made 
free from sin, they became the servants of righteousness. 

The gentleman emphasises the words, " where sin abound- 
ed, grace did much more abound." Well, where did sin 
abound ? In this world most certainly, and not in the future. 



UNIVERSAL SALVATION. 



135 



Well, the apostle simply says, u where sin abounded, grace 
did (not will) much more abound. " How can he make the? 
words, "where sin abounded, grace did much more abound ? " 
prove that grace wilt abound to all in the coming world 1 — 
Notwithstanding this superabundance of grace, the same 
apostle commands us to 44 follow peace with all men and ho- 
liness, without which no man shall see the Lord : looking 
diligentlv lest any man fail of the grace of God.*' Heb. 12; 
14, 15. * 

I undertake to say, that the gentleman contradicted the 
apostle, in the speech which you have just heard. The 
apostle says, " Death reigned from Adam to Moses, even 
over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's 
transgression, " v. 14. My friend says, 44 death, moral and 
spiritual, passed upon all men, not because one man sinned, 
but because that all have sinned." The apostle says, 44 For 
if by one man's offence death reigned by one, much more 
they which receive the abundance of grace, and the gift of 
righteousness, shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ."— 
Again the apostle says, 44 by one man's disobedience many 
were made sinners." These expressions of the apostle my 
friend does not believe. I hope he will state distinctly in 
his next speech, whether he believes that 44 by one man's 
offence death reigned by one," — that 44 by one man's disobe- 
dience many were made sinners," and that 44 by one man 
sin entered into the world, and death by sin." I wish him 
to answer, without any equivocation, whether he believes 
these passages. 

. He has furnished us with a new wrinkle, not only in the- 
ology in common, but in Universalism. And that is, that 
the death spoken of in the chapter under consideration, is 
spiritual and moral death ! I should be pleased to hear him 
explain how moral death could have 44 reigned from Adam 
to Moses, even over them that had not sinned, after the si- 
militude of Adam's transgression." I had supposed that mor- 
al and spiritual death simply reigned over sinners. This is 
a splendid exposition of Scripture, truly ! ! 

While the gentleman was making his criticism on the 
words, 44 by," 44 through," ^nd 44 because," I was doing my 
utmost to understand him ; but, possibly o wing to the obtuse- 
ness of my mind, 1 could not be certain that I did, This is 



1S6 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



about all I can make of it : 44 By one man sin entered into 
the world, and death by sin," "not because one man sinned!'' 
Well, now the question is, where is the difference between 
death entering into the world by one man, and because of 
one man ? What would you say of me if I should say, by 
Mr. A.'s industry he became wealthy, but not because of his 
industry he became wealthy ? You would certainly look 
upon it as a weak criticism. The apostle explains the mat- 
ter, v. 19, as follows: 44 By one man's disobedience many 
were made sinners." 

If it simply be moral and spiritual death, as my friend 
contends, and it comes by actual transgression, and not by 
the Adamic sin, then infants are not included in it at all, and 
consequently his universal salvation will leave out all the in- 
fants ; for no one of sense has ever tried to prove infants 
guilty of actual sin. I should be pleased to see how my 
friend will mend this. Thus his proof-text clearly testifies 
against him. 

3. Mr. M.'s third proof-text is found in Romans 8: 18, 
23. After conversing sometime on the passage, without tell- 
ing us what the word "creature" means, evidently showing 
that he feared to take a position, he tells us that 44 Henry, 
Pool, and Macknight say, that the word rendered 4 creature* 
and 'creation,' in the passage under consideration, signifies 
'every human creature,' 'all mankind,' " and asks me to tell 
him what the word does mean. It is his business to tell what 
it means, for unless he does this, there is no proof in the 
passage. I simply have to show that the passage does not 
prove his doctrine ; and from the manner in which he in- 
troduced it, I see that he does not rely upon it with much 
confidence. Be it remembered then, that his whole proof 
depended on what he had not courage 10 state, that is, that 
"creature" means all mankind. I shall now show, in a few 
words, that it cannot have that meaning. 

Verse 19, we are informed that 44 the earnest expectation 
of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of 
God." Here we have the "creature" and the 44 sons of God," 
Now 1 presume the 44 sons of God" are a part of mankind, 
but if the "creature" that waiteth for the manifestation of 
the sons of God, is all mankind, the sons of God. whose man- 
ifestation it waiteth for, are no part of all mankind It will 



UNIVERSAL SALVATION 



not do to say, that the creature waiteth for the manifestation 
of itself ! This would be nonsense. 

Verse 23, we are informed " that the whole creation 
groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now : and noi 
only they, but ourselves also, which have the first fruits of 
the spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting 
for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body." Now, 
if the "creation" of the 22d verse, is "all mankind," why 
does the apostle say, "not only they, but we ourselves also," 
in verse 23 ? Has he " all mankind," and " we ourselves 
also," over and above all mankind ? This is getting into a 
singular predicament. 

The gentleman speaks of several authorities that say the 
original word (ktisis) from which we have creature and cre- 
ation , means all mankind. Let us examine a few passages. 
" For the invisible things of him from the creation of the 
world are clearly seen," Ro. 1 : 20. Insert all mankind 
in the place of creation, and see what kind of sense you wili 
have. You have it then, " for the invisible things of him 
from the all mankind of the world," &c. " If any man be 
in Christ he is a new creature." 2 Cor. 5 : 17. That is, 
" if any man be in Christ, he is a new 'all mankind'! ! 
"Who is the first born from the dead of every creature," 
Col. 1 : 15. That is, " ths first born from the dead of every 
'all mankind.' " I will not multiply passages. 

By commencing at the 16th verse, you will see that this 
chapter is so far from proving Universalism, that it affords 
a strong argument against it. " The spirit itself beareth wit = 
ness with our spirit that we are the children of God : and if 
children," yes, " if children, then heirs ; heirs of God, and 
joint heirs with Christ, if so be that we suffer with him ;" 
yes, sir, " if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be 
glorified together." This differs very widely from that doc- 
trine which declares we "shall be glorified together," wheth- 
er we suffer with him or not. These ifs are greatly in the 
way of Universalism. 

4. My opponent's fourth proof-text is found, 1 Cor. 15. 
I listened to him as closely as possible, but was entirely un- 
able to see the proof of his proposition. He quotes the words, 
"As in Adam all die, even so in Christ, all shall be made 
alive," which brings to my mind a cut I saw in a barber's 



138 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



shop, in Dayton, Ohio. A man is represented, by this con- 
trivance, as standing, holding scales in his hands. On one 
end of the beam are the words, "As in Adam all die." In 
the center are the words " Even so." On the other end are 
the words, " In Christ all shall be made alive." Well, now 
the question arises, what do the words "even so" apply to ? 
If it be the number that died in Adam shall be "even so," the 
same that shall be made alive in Christ, then it proves noth- 
ing only what we all believe, that all will be raised from the 
dead. But if it be the quality shall be the same "even so" 
as it was when they died in Adam, it does not suit Univer- 
salists, for they contend that the quality shall be more than 
"even so" in the resurrection, as it was when they died in 
Adam. 

The gentleman tells us that all were made alive "in 
Christ," and that the phrase "in Christ," occurs about forty 
times, in the New Testament, and "is always applied to 
those who are justified." This is too weak to be even good 
sophistry. It is the Greek word en that is here translated in. 
This word is translated, by, through, with, in, and several 
other translations in the New Testament. Every sensible 
man knows that the English word in, can have no other 
meaning, in any passage of scripture, than the Greek word 
from which it is translated. Well, will any one say, that "en 
Christ," is "always applied to those who are justified?" 
This word, when it signifies place, should always be transla- 
ted in, but when it signifies agency, it should be translated by. 
It would not sound well to read, "For in Him are all things 
created," &c. — Col. 1: 16, but "by him," &c. % for he is the 
agent through or by which it is done. But when we read of 
"baptising en Jordan," it implies place, and cannot be trans- 
lated by, or through. When the apostle said "in Adam 
all die," he does not mean that Adam was the place where 
all die, but the agent through which, or by which death was 
brought upon all. Just so, when it is said, "in Christ all 
shall be made alive," it does not mean that Christ is the 
place where all shall be made alive, but the agent through 
which, or by which, all shall be made alive. To say 
that Christ is the place, would be the most weak and childish 
thing that has appeared in the 19th century. 

If then, the passage simply means by or through, Christ all 



UNIVERSAL SALVATION. 



139 



shall be made alive, as it was by or through Adam all 
died, what becomes of my friend's argument ? 

The apostle proceeds, "Christ the first fruits, afterwards 
they that are Christ's at his coming." This passage the 
gentleman applies to the resurrection of the dead, as it 
undoubtedly ought to be applied; and consequently as the 
apostle speaks of those "that are Christ's at his coming," 
and the resurrection of the dead, he implies that there will 
be some that are not Christ's at that time. Here then, 
he has involved his doctrine in a difficulty, from which 
he will be unable to extricate it. 

From the expression "they that are Christ's," to the close 
of the chapter, he simply speaks of his brethren — they that 
are Christ's, and says not one word about any others, 
and any expression applied to them, does nothing towards 
proving my friend's favorite proposition, "that all the wicked 
will be saved." This I shall abundantly show hereafter, 
and hope in the mean time, my friend will give us the best 
arguments he can produce, as I desire no victory but that of 
truth over error. 

When the gentleman quotes authorities, I hope he will 
give the references, that I may examine them. 

[Time expired.] 



MR. MANFORD'S SECOND SPEECH. 



Respected Audience : 

Mr. F. says that my proposition, if true, is of but little 
importance. I was completely astonished when I heard this 
statement. What! is it of no importance that our Heavenly 
Father will, in the "dispensation of the fullness of times," 
redeem all His offspring from error and sin ? Is it of no im- 
portance that the great heart of humanity shall throb witht'i 



140 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



love of God 1 Is it of no importance that the severed links 
of affection shall again be blended together in one peaceful, 
harmonious whole, never more to be separated ? After this, I 
shall be astonished at nothing. His remark is a proof of the 
degrading tendency of the doctrine of endless misery, 
Says Mr. F., there is not one passage in the Bible which 
says "all men shall be holy." Nor any which says "all men 
shall be happy." Nor yet is there any passage which says* 
"all men shall be holy and happy." In answer to this, 
I will suppose my friend was in the affirmative of the follow- 
ing proposition, viz: "Do the scriptures teach that any 
part of mankind will be holy and happy V 9 This proposition 
he believes, and of course would be willing to defend it. 
Now* suppose I were his opponent, and should answer 
his arguments as he has mine, This, then, would be my 
reply : There is not one passage in the Bible, which says 
"any part of mankind shall be holy." Nor any passage 
which says that "any part of mankind shall be happy." 
Nor yet, is there any passage which says that "any part of 
mankind shall be holy and happy." In reply to me, I sup= 
pose my friend would say there were passages, which in other 
words, taught the same thing. I make the same answer. 
Shall we not henceforth have something more like the 
reasoning of a man t 

Let what has just been said be an answer to all assertion§ 
that my proof texts do not contain the words "holy s " 
"happy," "final," &c, Mr. F. cannot possibly be so igno- 
rant as not to know that a proposition can be proved without 
using the exact words of that proposition. My friend is not 
pleased with my statement of the issue between us. I 
thought I had stated it fairly. But he says that he does 
not believe any of the wicked will be saved; and quotes 
a passage to prove that the wicked will be turned into 
hell. I am right glad he has quoted this scripture, and when 
we come to the last proposition, I will attend to it for hirn. 
Of course Mr. F. believes sinners are wicked, and that the 
wicked are sinners, or in other words, that these words 
are convertible. Now, Paul says, "Jesus came into the 
world to save sinners." But Mr. F. solemnly protests 
against either believing that all sinners will be saved, or that 
any sinners will be saved. He cannot extricate himself from 
this difficulty by saying that he only meant none of the 



UNIVERSAL SALVATION. 



14! 



wicked would be saved in their wickedness. I did him the 
justice to say this for him. My words were as follows : 
"Neither of us believe that any will be saved in their wicked- 
ness — in their sins ; but from their wickedness — from their 
sins." But notwithstanding this careful qualification, Mr. F. 
still says that I have not properly stated the issue. He has 
got into a difficulty here, which he will find hard to escape 
from . 

He thinks, in order to enjoy salvation in the future state, 
men will have to sin in the future state ! He says, therefore, 
because I believe all sinners will be saved, that 1 must believe 
all will be sinners in the eternal world ! ! 

I will give his remarks on Matthew and Luke all the at- 
tention 1 deem they merit. He thinks those Evangelists con- 
tradict each other; that Matthew represents Christ as speak- 
ing of the resurrection of all the dead, while Luke of only 
part! And this is his way of evading my argument built on 
those passages ! If, however, Luke does not contradict Mat- 
thew, then all the dead will "be accounted worthy" of being 
raised the children of God, equal to the angels, to die no 
more. I again call on him to tell me if all will not be worthy 
of that world — the future world — and a resurrection from the 
dead I He will please answer that question. He certainly 
believes that all will be "accounted [worthy" of a future state 
and the resurrection. He will not deny this. Well, Jesus 
informs us that all who shall be accounted worthy of existing 
hereafter, "shall be equal to the angels of heaven, shall be 
the children of God, shall die no more, shall live unto him," 
1 shall hold him right here. He thinks the words, "For he 
is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for all—the 
dead— -live unto him," affords my argument no aid! They 
prove, 1st, that all the dead, live, and consequently afford 
additional proof that Christ spoke of the resurrection of all 
mankind. 2 : That all the dead, not only live, but live unto 
him — -God. What is meant by living unto God ? Undoubt- 
edly to love him, serve him, and enjoy his blessings— to be 
like the angels. Well, all the dead are thus to live unto 
God. Does Mr. F. believe this of all the dead ? Far from 
it. He thinks some will live unto God, and some will live un- 
to the devil. In no sense can it be said that the damned in 
an orthodox hell live unto God, I call his special attention 
to this argument. 



142 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION, 



That the word, world, has various meanings in the Bible, 
he knows or ought to know. Both of us, however, admit that 
in this passage it refers to the spirit land. In the proper 
place I will prove that the phrase, "this world and world to 
come," in Matt. 12, has no reference to the future state. In 
fact, most of orthodox commentators take this ground. When 
my friend's endless misery proposition comes before us, I 
will prove that the "resurrection to damnation," in John 5, 
does not relate to the resurrection to immortality. Let him 
bring these and similar passages up at the proper time, and I 
will show that they do not afford an inch of ground for him 
to rest a foot on. The question now is, does Christ, in Matt. 
22 and Luke 20, teach a resurrection of all the dead to a 
blessed immortality '? Let Mr. F. show, if he can, that Jesus 
does not. He informs us that the Bible makes the blessedness 
of the resurrection depend on our conduct in this life ! How 
will infants and idiots then be raised, whose conduct was neither 
good or bad 1 Will their condition in the resurrection be ac- 
cording to their conduct in this world ? Please inform us. 
On my second proof-text, Mr. F. has made a weak effort tru- 
ly. He has not said any thing that is really worth replying 
to. I firmly believe "that God commendeth his love toward 
us, in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us," and 
that this exhibition of love and mercy was not in vain. God 
loves all 9 Christ died for all 9 and hence 1 infer that all will 
forever enjoy the blessing of the love of heaven. Can any 
reasonable person infer otherwise ? I of course believe in a 
present salvation, but do not believe^ with him that it is the 
foundation on which to build our hope of heaven in eternity. 
This present salvation is the gift of God, and so will be our 
eternal salvation. God saves us in this world, and he will 
save us in the world to come. Paul, by the expressions, "we 
shall be saved from wrath," "we shall be saved by his life," 
cannot have any reference to the eternal world, but to a con- 
tinuation of the present salvation during life. I now enjoy 
good health, and hope to be saved from sickness while I live. 
Paul and his brethren were saved, and they hoped for a con- 
tinuation of that salvation to the end of their earthly journey. 

But if none will be favored with a seat in heaven but those 
who are reconciled to God and saved here, what will become 
of those who never heard the gospel, and consequently can 
not be saved by it in this world ? Mr, F. very politely informs 



UNIVERSAL SALVATION. 



143 



me that I do not believe certain expressions in this chapter 
about sin and death, and then very consistently wishes me to 
tell distinctly, without equivocation, whether 1 believe those 
declarations ! I will inform him that I do believe all that is 
written in that chapter, and I also believe that he knows but 
little about that portion of Romans. I could show, I think, 
that my views of death and of the origin of sin, are correct, 
but as my argument on that chapter would not be affected if 
those views were false, I do not think it best to spend much 
time now on those subjects. The more important question 
is, does the apostle, in that chapter, teach the destruction of 
sin and death, and the universal reign of righteousness and 
eternal life ? 1 affirm he does. Mr. F. has neglected most 
of my proof of this all-important point. Let me again call 
his attention to it. Inverse 18 the apostle informs us, that in- 
asmuch as judgment came on all men to condemnation, the 
free gift — the gospel of Christ — came into the world to justify 
all men, to deliver them from this condemnation. This agrees 
with what Paul elsewhere says, "For the grace of God — the 
gospel — that bringeth salvation to all men — hath appeared." 
Means then are provided for the redemption of all from con- 
demnation. The next verse informs us that the means will 
be efficacious, will redeem all from the dominion of sin and 
its consequences. 

Here it is said that the many, which all admit means all 
mankind, were made sinners, so that the many — all the 
sinners be made righteous. All are sinners by some 
means, and all shall be made righteous. Yes, the grace of 
God will be effectual in doing that for which it was sent. It 
was given to save the world and it will fully do its work. 
Saith the Almighty, " For as the rain cometh down, and the 
snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth 
the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may 
give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater : so shall my 
word — the gospel — be that goeth forth out of my mouth ; 
it shall not return unto me void but shall accomplish that 
which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I 
sent it." Isa. 55 : 10, 11. The next verse — " Moreover 
the law entered that offences might abound : but where sin 
abounded, grace did much more abound." By "law " here 
is meant the law of Moses. It was given that offences 



144 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION* 



might abound, or in other words, that it might be known 
what deeds were sinful, for 44 where there is no law there is 
no transgression. By 44 grace " is intended the gospel of 
Christ. It is said 44 The law came by Moses, but grace and 
truth by Jesus Christ." Well, where sin, produced by a 
knowledge of the law, abounded, grace — the gospel — did 
much more abound. It has gone out into all the earth to 
bless and sanctify all of Adam's sinful race. In the next 
verse we are again informed that this grace will save the 
world : " And as sin hath reigned unto death," — condemna- 
tion, as the 13th verse expresses it, which by the way 
proves that it is moral death — 44 even so might grace reign 
through righteousness" — the righteous labor of Jesus Christ 
<4 unto eternal life," or justification to life, to righteousness, as 
it is expressed in the 18th and 19th verses. Here is an ar- 
gument in favor of universal blessedness it is impossible to 
avoid. 1. Judgment, condemnation and death, came on all 
men. 2. The grace of God is given to save all mankind 
from these evils. 3. It will produce universal righteousness. 

What he said about infants, must have been offered for 
the want of something better to say at the time. As infants 
are without sin, they do not need to be saved from sin. If 
they die infants, they die without sin ; even according to my 
friend's theory, they go to heaven. He suggests that possi- 
bly the obtuseness of his mind prevents him from under- 
standing me at all times. I shall leave him alone with his 
own suggestions. Possibly he may be right. If he cannot 
perceive any difference of meaning between the words by 
and through and the word because, then he is right ! Multi- 
tudes, in heathen, Mohamedan and Christian lands, now fail 
of the grace of God, revealed in the gospel; but I trust that 
in the dispensation of the fulness of time, all will enjoy this 
grace through Jesus Christ. It is no where said that any 
will utterly fail of this grace. The Bible does not contra- 
dict itself. 

I now come to Mr. Franklin's remarks on Rom. 8. He 
says I feared to take a position with reference to the word 
creation, and that it is for me to say what the word means, 
and not for him. I did define that word, and sustained my 
definition by Henry, Pool, and Macknight. But he cannot 
say in truth, that he has so much as tried, to hint at its mean- 



UNIVERSAL SALVATION, 



Uc 



ing. What are you afraid of ? Do you not dare tell us. 
what you think about it, or do you not think anything 1 He 
represents me as producing these authorities to prove the 
word means all mankind in every place in the Bible where 
it occurs. This is a gross and willful misrepresentation. 
I introduced them to prove it has that meaning in the 22d 
verse of this chapter. Words have different meanings in 
different places, and their signification must be determined 
by their context. My friend seems to be totally ignorant of 
this fact. The term is so carefully qualified here that there 
is no room for misunderstanding it, " The whole creation 
shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption. 59 I will 
inform Mr. Franklin, for his information, that this phrase, 
"the whole creation/' does not occur in one of the passages 
he quotes and makes so much noise about, This must be a 
mortifying fact to my friend, as he relies so much on them, 
li e informs us that the "sens of God' 9 and "ourselves" com- 
pose no part of the whole creation ! ! Then of course they 
were not created at all ! Will he venture to tell us how 
they came into existence ? By the "sons of God" and "our- 
selves" are evidently meant believers—those who are "sav- 
ed by hope," are " led by the spirit of God," verses 14. 24, 
As they the christians, compose no part of " the whole 
creation," they are not to be "delivered from the bondage of 
corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God." 

Bear in mind that St. Paul and all his christian brethren 
do not belong to "the whole creation," and consequently are 
not to enjoy " the glorious deliverance " promised ! This 
follows from what he says on that subject. " The whole 
creation," then, is to be delivered from corruption, but 
as christians do not belong to " the whole creation" they 
are never to be blessed with such a deliverance, " Herein 
is wisdom." But a little attention to the Bible makes Paul's 
meaning plain. Christians are embraced in "the whole cre- 
ation," and then as he wishes to speak of their peculiar pri- 
vileges, he speaks of them separate and apart. In 1 John 2: 
2, there is a similar form of expression : "And he is the , 
propitiation for our sins : and not for ours only, but also for 
the sins of the whole world." Here christians are spoken of 
distinct from "the whole world," 7 and according to my friend's 
logic, they compose no part of "the whole world." Bu% 
10 



146 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



John and his brethren are embraced in "the whole world, 7 ' 
and so are Paul and his brethren embraced in " the whole 
creation.'' This is a glorious promise. " The whole crea- 
tion " is to be " delivered from the bondage of corruption 
into the glorious liberty of the children of God." Language 
cannot be more expressive of universal salvation. May we 
all believe this blessed promise, and with the primitive chris- 
tians, be now saved by hope. 

What Mr. F. says about 1 Cor. 15, I will now notice.— 
That the phrase "even so" relates to number, and cannot re- 
late to quality, is evident : "As in Adam all die, even so in 
Christ shall all' be made alive." If the words "even so" 
do not' relate to the word "all," in each member of the sen- 
tence, then it relates to nothing whatever, and means nothing ; 
and I infer this is his understanding of it ; for he says, "from 
the expression, 'they that are Christ's,' which is in the next 
verse, to the close of the chapter, he simply speaks of his 
brethren." So in the 22d verse he speaks of the resurrec- 
tion of all mankind, but in the next verse, of the resurrection 
of his brethren. Now, let us examine the 22d verse just 
quoted. 

In Chkist. He thinks this a wrong translation, and that 
it should be rendered " by Christ," because " Christ is not 
the place where all shall be made alive." Well, the same 
apostle in another passage says, " Therefore if any man be 
in Chkist he is a new creature." 2 Cor. 5 : 17. He will 
admit that this is a right translation, for it would not do to 
say "if any man be by Christ he is a new creature." If in 
is correctly rendered here, then Christ is the "place where" 
men are made new creatures ; and if men can be made new 
creatures in Christ, why can they not be made " alive in 
Christ?" But I have a host of proof that we can be in 
Christ ; this truth is taught in all parts of the New Testa- 
ment. " Know ye not that as many as were baptized into 
Christ w 7 ere baptized into his death." Rom. 6:9. " For 
as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put 
on Christ," "for we are all one in Christ." Gal. 3: 27, 28, 
29. " In Christ " and "into Christ" are synonymous terms, 
Do not these scriptures teach that we can be in Christ ? No 
people talk and w 7 rite so much about the importance of being 
in Christ as Mr. Franklin's brethren do, "Be baptized into 



UNIVERSAL SALVATION. 



147 



Christ " is the theme on which they delight to dwell. But 
according to my friend, no one can be in Christ by any 
means, not even by baptism ; for to be in Christ, he says, is 
making Christ "the place," and he adds, to use his words, 
" this would be the most weak and childish thing that has 
appeared in the 19th century. " Then he and his brethren 
have preached lots of foolishness ; and not only they, but all 
the apostles of Christ, for they taught a universal gathering 
in Christ. 

It is not in the 22d but in the 21st verse that we are taught 
that we shall be raised by Christ. "For since by man came 
death, by man — the man Christ Jesus- — also came the resur- 
rection of the dead." Then follows the verse under consid- 
eration : "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all 
be made alive." In the first verse quoted we are taught thai 
the dead shall be raised by Christ, and in the second that 
they shall be raised in Christ. liaised by Christ, in Christ. 
In and by are taken from two different prepositions, and have 
different significations. But if the same idea is contained in 
both places, why are the prepositions different ? The 22d 
verse, then, means just as it reads. All the dead shall be 
raised in Christ — not one out of Christ: and to be "in Christ 
is to be a new creature ; to have old things pass away, and 
have all things become new." I am willing to rest the whole 
controversy on that verse. There, clearly and positively, 
a universal resurrection to glory and honor is taught. In the 
next verse, he says, Paul begins to speak of the resurrection 
of his brethren, those who are Christ's. Those who are in 
Christ belong to Christ ; and we have seen that all who die 
in Adam will be raised in Christ ; consequently, in the resur- 
rection all vvill be Christ's. But says he : "the words 'they 
that are Christ's at his coming' imply there will be some that 
will not be his." The Psalmist says . /'All nations whom 
thou hast made shall come and worship before thee, O Lord." 
No one infers from this that there are nations God has not 
made. Neither should we conclude that all will not be Christ's, 
from the language of the apostle. In my next speech I shall 
offer much more proof that all will be Christ's in the eternal 
world. The few moments remaining I will devote to intro- 
ducing other proofs of my proposition, " Having made 
known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his goo<J 



148 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



pleasure, which he hath purposed in himself: That in the dis- 
pensation of the fulness of time he might gather together in one, 
all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are 
on earth, even in him." Eph. 1 : 9, 10. Here the apostle 
first speaks of the good pleasure, will, and purpose of God. 
2. He says it is God's good pleasure, will and purpose to 
gather together in one all things in Christ, both which 
are in heaven and which are in earth even in him. Here 
we are twice informed that it is God's purpose to gather all 
things in Christ, in him. The preposition in occurs six 
times in this passage, and in two places it is said that 
all things shall be gathered together in Christ, in him ; 
and he will not dare to say it means by in one of the places. 
Notwithstanding he says is "weak and childish" to suppose 
we can be in Christ, Almighty God has purposed that all 
shall be gathered in Christ, and St. Paul believed it and 
preached it. How well this corresponds with what Paul says 
in Corinthians 15. When he informs us that all the dead shall 
be raised in Christ, he wrote what he knew was God's good 
pleasure, will, and purpose. [Time expired.] 



MR. FRANKLIN'S SECOND REPLY. 



Beloved Fellow-Citizens : 

That my friend, Mr. M., feels completely defeated, I think, 
must be fully evident to you all, from the speech you have 
just heard. It is to be hoped he will recover from his disap- 
pointed feelings, at least so far as to get in a better humor, 
and manifest less anger. He talked as crabbidly as if he 
had lost all his friends. In his excitement, he told you, that 
I said, that his "proposition, if true, is of but little import- 
ance," and adds, " I was completely astonished when I 
heard this." But perhaps he will be more astonished when 
I tell him that h$ did not hear it at all. My statement was ; 



UNIVERSAL SALVATION, 



149 



if " his proposition should prove true, it is of but little im= 
portance whether we debate it or not, or whether any body 
shall believe it or not." I still say if his position is true, it 
is no difference whether any creature under heaven believes 
it or not, for all who fight against it will be just as happy in 
heaven as those who believe it all their lives. He adds, 
" after this I shall be astonished at nothing." Will he not 
recall this after his excitement, and conclude not to "be as= 
tonished at nothing?" 

I do not say the precise words of a proposition must be 
contained in a proof text, but words which have the same 
meaning of the terms of the proposition must be contained 
in the proof text, or it cannot sustain the proposition. In 
relation to my friend's proposition, I say then, that not only 
are the terms of his proposition not in the Bible, but there 
are no other terms there which have their meaning, If he 
thinks he can find the same expressions indicative or con- 
firmative of the final holiness and happiness of the wicked, 
that 1 can of the righteous, I will give him a specimen : " To 
them who by patient continuance in well doing, seek for glory, 
and honor, and immortality, eternal life." Now, as thegen- 
tleman has set out to prove that " all the wicked will be 
saved," let him show one place where the promise just 
quoted, is given to any but those who continue faithful in 
well-doing. 

The gentleman tells you that when he comes to the last 
proposition he will attend to the wicked being " turned into 
hell." He ought to profit by the old adage, " never put off 
for to-morrow, what ought to be done to-day." I see he is 
turning orthodox, and is putting off the " evil day." The 
last proposition will have its own troubles. But this was the 
best he could do, as he was involved in so many difficulties 
that he knew he could not escape from them ; and to keep 
up the spirits of the very few of his brethren present, he 
tells them that he will attend to these matters at a " more 
convenient season," 

Mr. M. appears to be heartily sick of his statement — that 
all sinners will be saved. But he gathered up courage 
enough to quote the words : " Jesus came into the world to 
save sinners." But this does not help him out of the diffi- 
culty. We all can see how Jesus can save sinners 44 from 



160 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION; 



their sins " in this world, where he came to save them ; but 
we cannot see how they can be saved from their sins in the 
coming world, if there is no sin there. A Universalian hell 
is a perfect bugbear, and salvation from it a grand chimera. 
A preacher of universal salvation ! Salvation from what I 
From sin ? No, for there will be no sin in the coming 
world! Is it a salvation from hell ? No, for there will be 
no hell in the coming world. Is it a salvation from punish- 
ment ? No, for there will be no punishment in that world. 
Well, in the name of reason and common sense, what are 
we to be saved from ? Nothing under the heavens. In a 
private conversation with me, the gentleman allowed the 
devil was a great scare-crow ; but his salvation is worse — it 
is a perfect nonentity. He says, " I think, in order to enjoy 
salvation in a future state, a man will have to sin in a 
future state." But this is another of his statements in his 
excitement. I do not think so at all, but 1 think Christ and 
the apostles labored to turn men from their sins in this 
world, that they might flee the wrath to come. 

The gentleman told you that I think Matthew and Luke 
contradict each other. You must make allowance, my 
friends, for these statements. He is so confused that he 
cannot remember what I said, much less tell what I think. 
I do not think these historians contradict each other, nor 
does it become a minister of the gospel to try to involve 
them in contradictions. Mr. M., like Mr. Paine, cannot see 
how one historian can record a matter, and another omit it, 
without contradicting each other. I have admitted all he 
could reasonably request, which is that probably Matthew did 
include a/Z, but even this cannot be proved. But if Mr. M. 
cannot see that Luke gives a fuller account than Matthew, I 
can easily make this audience see it. Matthew simply re- 
cords the words : 44 For in the resurrection they neither 
marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of 
God in heaven." Now, which one of these words, or what 
part of this sentence, means that all men shall be 44 holy ? M 
Mr. M. has admitted that the word holy is not in the passage. 
What word, then, has that meaning ? or by what part of this 
sentence does he prove that all will be holy ? But he af- 
firms that all men shall be happy. Well, the word happy is 
not in the text, as he admits. What word, then, means that 



U N I V E R SAL SALYA TION- 



151 



all men shall be happy ? But he affirms that all men shall 
be finally holy and happy. Neither of these words are to 
be found in the passage, nor dare the gentleman select any 
word in the passage and say it means the same as any one 
of these. If, then, the words finally, holy, and happy, are 
not in the passage, nor any other words that havo the same 
meaning, how does my friend find proof in it that all men 
will be holy and happy 1 Does he say, the whole matter 
rests on the expression, 44 they shall be as the angels of God 
in heaven " ? Then, I ask, in what respect does he say they 
shall be as the angels 1 The Savior answers : 44 They nei- 
ther marry nor are given in marriage ." This will be a real 
Shaker heaven, truly, consisting in the abolishment of mar- 
riage alone ! 1 1 But 44 all live unto him." Well, what 
does that prove \ It is in the present tense, and does not say 
that all shall ' live unto him, but simply, 4 * all live unto him,'? 
If this proves the holiness and happiness of all, it proves 
that all are holy and happy now, for it says nothing about 
what shall be> 1 felt sorry for the gentleman, to hear and 
see him strain his lungs to emphasize these words as he did, 
when they come not in sight of his proposition. But still I 
must not blame him too much, for he has to make his 
speeches in turn, and he must use such materials as he can 
get. 

When we come to Luke, we have an additional state- 
ment, which shows to every man of reason that he is 
speaking of the resurrection of the just. He qualifies the 
persons of whom he speaks, thus : 44 They which shall be 
accounted worthy to obtain that world and the resurrec- 
tion of the dead/' But he wishes me to answer the ques- 
tion, whether all will not be accounted worthy. I answer, 
no. All will not be accounted worthy to obtain the heavenly 
world, of which he is speaking. This I showed clearly in 
my first speech, by a reference to two passages of Scripture, 
one of which shows that some will come forth in the resur- 
rection to condemnation, and the other shows that some per- 
sons will be recompensed at * 4 the resurrection of the just." 
These two passages the gentleman dreads, and consequently 
has laid them over to the 44 proper place." It is not a 
" proper place" with him, to attend to passages which re- 
late to the resurrection while we are on that subject ! O, no ! 



152 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



his plan is to select an isolated passage, and put a construc- 
tion upon it which contradicts other clear and explicit passa- 
ges on the same subject ; and when I allude to these other 
passages, he tells you, that he will attend to them in the pro- 
per place. I expect to have plenty forjiim to do when he 
gets to the proper place, and that he will be just as busy then 
as he is now; and that if he leaves half his work undone 
now, it will have to remain undone. He applies the 
language of the Savior, spoken of the worthy, to all men, 
and changes the tense from the words, " all live unto him," 
to the words, all shall live unto him. If I should handle the 
word of God in this way, I should wish, too, that there was 
no curse to him who shall add to the word of God. 

When I refer him to the words, " this world and that 
which is to come," as used in reference to the sin against 
the Holy Spirit, he informs us that the word world has dif- 
ferent meanings. I have just discovered his rule for deter- 
mining the meaning of such words. When "that world," 
"eternal," and " everlasting," stand connected with punish- 
men or a state in which there is no forgiveness, they always 
refer to this world, but >vhen these words stand related to 
some good, it is as clear as sunbeams in the heavens that 
they relate to the eternal state. This is what lop-sided, gar- 
bling Universalism makes of the word of God. 

But the gentleman does not hesitate to expose to ridicule 
the language of Jesus, which says, "they that have done 
good shall come forth to a resurrection of life." But he in- 
quires as cunningly as those who said, "whose wife shall 
she be 1 " " how then will infants and idiots be raised whose 
conduct was neither good or bad ? " How do you suppose 
the Savior could answer this very sage question 1 I suppose 
he would answer it very much to the confusion of my friend. 
But he could not ridicule this clear and solemn statement of 
our Lord. The Lord states that all shall come forth, and 
then speaks of the condition of the classes— those who have 
done good, and those who have done evil. The other class 
he says nothing about, except the fact that they shall come 
forth. Of course I only spoke of those who have done 
good or bad. But still a quibble gives my friend some com- 
fort. 

On the 5th of Eom, ? the gentleman has renounced his 



UNIVERSAL SALVATION, 



153 



entire faith, and he would be exceedingly glad if he were 
out of the entire concern. I asked him in my first speech 
on this proposition, if he believed that, 44 by one man's of- 
fence death reigned by one," that 44 by one man's disobedi- 
ence many were made sinners," and that 44 by one man sin 
entered into the world." In answer to this he says, 66 1 do 
believe all that is written in that chapter." Well, he has 
now conceded, that he believes that " by one man's offence 
death reigned by one," that 44 by one man's disobedience many 
were made sinners," and that 44 by one man sin entered into 
the world," Thus you discover he has virtually renounced 
his first speech on this point. But, he says, the death spoken 
of here 44 is moral death." Well, the resurrection from it is 
only a moral resurrection then, or a conversion to Christian- 
ity, and there is nothing in the passage about a resurrection 
from the dead literally. So he has given up the whole pass- 
age, He cannot make a moral death of it and a literal res- 
urrection. He is then, in a dilemma. If he admits it to be 
a literal death, he contradicts himself, for he has stated that 
it is a moral death ; and if he continues to say that it is mor- 
al death, it only subjects those under its influence to a grave 
of sin, and a resurrection from it, is simply a conversion, 
and of course in this world, and consequently there is no 
future salvation in the passage. But to make the matter 
still worse, if possible, he has said that he does not believe 
in imputed righteousness ; yet he contends that justification 
is through righteousness. If it is not through the righteous- 
ness of Christ, as he says he does not. believe it is, it must 
be through our own righteousness; and if this be so, we 
must be righteous in this world or go into the eternal world 
unjustified. This he took care to pass in silence. What is still 
more^ fatal to his scheme, if possible, is that he showed that 
the 44 much more," of this chapter is conditional. Hear it 
again : 44 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to 
God by the death of his Son; much more being reconciled 
we shall be saved by his life." Now while Paul says, 44 much 
more being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life," Mr. 
M. says we shall be saved whether we be reconciled or not 
in this lite. He believes all that is written in this chapter, 
he says; does he then believe that 44 much more being recon- 
ciled, we shall be saved by his life ?" My friend believes 



154 



THEOLOGICAL DISCISSION, 



all that is written in this chapter. He believes then, that 
" much more being now justified we shall be saved from 
wrath through him." Well, if he believes that the man 
who is note justified and reconciled, will be saved from wrath 
through him, much more than if he were not now justified 
and reconciled, he is no longer a Universalist ; and thus he 
has taken the trouble to come all the way from Indianapolis 
to Milton, to renounce Universalism, and have it printed in a 
book and circulated throughout this country. 

The gentleman made so many concessions while speak- 
ing upon this chapter, thut 1 fear 1 shall not have time to no- 
tice them all in one short speech. I noticed that the " free 
gift," and the " grace of God," were defined by him to be 
the gospel, and consequently to be saved by the " free gift " 
and the " grace of God," is to be saved by the gospel. Well , 
can any man tell how any one can be saved by the gcspel, 
except by obeying it in this life ! Surely not. But my 
friend has actually brought the salvation spoken of in this 
chapter into this world. He says, " Paul, by the expres- 
sions, 1 we shall be saved from wrath,' 4 we shall be saved by 
his life,' cannot have any reference to the eternal world, but 
to a continuation of present salvation during life." And 
what would you guess, the present salvation is, with him ? 
You know what he said. "I now enjoy good health, and 
hope to be saved from sickness while I live." What a spir- 
itual salvation this present salvation of Universalism is ! — 
To be saved from sickness, is present salvation ! Yes, this 
is being " saved from wrath through him," and " saved by his 
life." Well, some most outrageous sinners enjoy this salva- 
tion from wrath ! Does the gentleman believe that " where 
sin abounded grace did much more abound ? " Why in the 
name of reason does he quote this passage to prove that 
grace will abound in the eternal world ? Are the words 
"grace did much more abound," the same as grace shall 
much more abound in the eternal world ? This abundance of 
grace is for them who receive the gift of righteousness, and, 
as the gentleman does not believe in imputed righteousness, 
this gift of righteousness must be our own righteousness, 
and must be in this life, or we go into the eternal state in 
unrighteousness. He allows what 1 said about infants was 
for the want of something better, It was because he was 



rNlVERSAL SALVATION, 



155 



in a difficulty on that point, from which he has not escaped. 
He made the condemnation upon all mankind, and made the 
justification through our own righteous conduct, and conse- 
quently excluded all infants and idiots. With all his char- 
ity therefore, he shuts a large portion of the most innocent 
part of the human race out of heaven ! 

My friend tried to mend up his argument on the 8th 
of Rom., but made it abundantly worse than it was before. 
You remember his lovely language. He says, "he supposes 
me as producing these authorities to prove that the word means 
all mankind in every place in the Bible where it occurs, 
This is a gross and wilful misrepresentation. " How kind ! 
How affable! But did I misrepresent him? If I did, his 
own words misrepresent him, for 1 quoted him correctly, as 
the report of this debate will show. But the truth in the case 
is that he was defeated so signally on this passage, and thrown 
into such an inextricable difficulty, that he knew not how to 
restrain his wrath ; and consequently, has made no defence 
in his last speech, except one of the weakest and most point- 
less quibbles I ever heard. But as this was the best he could 
do, you must bear with him. He informs you that the words 
have different meanings in different passages, and that I 
seem to be wholy ignorant of this fact. I am by no 
means ignorant of this fact; but it is a method always 
resorted to, by biblical critics, in ascertaining the meaning of 
a word in any particular place, to examine the use of that 
word in other passages. This I did, in examining the 
word "creature," and can multiply passages abundantly 
where it does not mean all mankind. This, it appears, 
offended him. But I showed from the connection, that 
it could not possibly mean all mankind, in the text before us. 
This I did, by referring to verse 19, where the apostle says, 
"The earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the 
manifestation of the sons of God." Now, any man who 
cannot see that the "creature" here is one thing, and the "sons 
of God," something else, I should think scarcely an accounta- 
ble being. The "creature" waiteth. Well, what does it 
wait for ? "The manifestation of the sons of God." Now, 
if "creature," in this passage, was all mankind, of course it 
includes the "sons of God," for they are a part of all man- 
kind , and consequently, the creature waiteth for the manifes- 



t 



156 THEOLOGICAL DISCUS3IOIW 

tation of itself. This is the kind of sense Universalian in- 
terpretation makes of the word of God. But verse 22 says, 
"the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together 
until now, and not only they" — and not only who? "the 
whole creation" — "but ourselves also." But Mr. M. says, 
"the whole creation" in this passage, means all mankind. 
Well, Paul says, "not only they," that is, according to 
Mr. M. "not only all mankind." Well, Paul, who else ? 
"But ourselves also." That is, according to my friend, "not 
only all mankind, but ourselves also, as well as all mankind. 
What profound exposition of scripture this ! How beauti- 
fully Universalism harmonizes with the word of God ! How 
does the gentleman try to escape from this difficulty ? Sim- 
ply, by referring to the words of John : "not for our sins 
■only, but also for the sins of the whole world," But this 
is not the same kind of a sentence. The apostle here men- 
tions a part first, and says, not only this part, but the whole. 
How would it sound to say, "sins of the whole world, 
and not only theirs, but ours also!" This would be equal to 
saying, "my whole farm is under fence, and not only 
my farm, but my potato patch also." But he was so confused 
that he forgot the plain language of the passage before 
us. He says, "as they, (the christians,) compose no part of 
the whole creation," they are not to be delivered from " the 
bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the chil- 
dren of God." But the apostle says, "And not only they," 
the whole creation — "but ourselves also, which have the 
first fruits of the spirit, even we, ourselves, groan within our- 
selves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption 
of our body." 

"As in Adam all die, even so, in Christ shall all be made 
alive." My friend now admits that the words ; 'even so," in 
this passage, relate to the number and not to the quality. 
The passage then, simply asserts the resurrection of all. 
But according to his docrine, it is only a moral resurrection ; 
for he says the death we die in Adam, is moral death, and of 
course resurrection from it, can be nothing but a moral 
resurrection. He is then in a singular predicament, on this 
passage. But he has favored us with a disquisition on 
the words "in Christ," and denies the agency of Christ 
in making all alive, and has taken the singular position, that 



UNIVERSAL SALVATION. 



157 



Christ is not the agent through which, all arc made alive, but 
the place where all are made alive. Well, Adam is the 
place where all die then, for "as in Adam all die, even so in 
Christ all shall be made alive." "In Adam" then, is 
the place where all die ? A singular place, truly ! Yes. 
and this death is moral death ! and of course, the resurrec- 
tion from it, is a moral resurrection, and the place where 
it occurs is in Christ!" There is such a state as being 
"in Christ," or such a relation, and those in that state or re- 
lation, are new creatures; and Paul tells us just how many 
are in that state or relation : "As many as have been 
baptized into Christ, have put on Christ." "He quoted this 
passage in his last speech, and now I want him to tell you in 
his next speech, whether he believes persons are "baptized 
into Christ," and if he does, whether all are baptized 
into Christ] He says, "In Christ and into Christ, are 
synonymous terms." Well, this will be new to men of 
learning! Will he refer us to a few learned doctors, 
who say "in Christ and into Christ, are synonymous terms ?" 
No, we shall have no authority but Mr. Manford, for this, 
and he contradicts himself too frequently to be good author- 
ity. Learned men have always thought that being "baptized 
into Christ," is the act of entering the state or relation 
of being in Christ. Learned men have always thought that 
there must be an into, before there can be an "in" — that 
is, that a man must enter into a house, before he can be in it, 
but now we are informed that in and into, are synonymous 
terms ! Singular propositions require singular methods to 
defend them ! We may throw away Webster and Walker 
now, as their definitions are all wrong, and let Mr. M. make 
a definition to suit Universalism ! In the 21 verse, we are 
informed that "since by man came death, by man, also, came 
the resurrection of the dead ; for (verse 22) as in Adam 
all die, even so in Christ all shall be made aliv^." What i3 
said in verse 22, is given as a reason for what he had said, 
verse 21. The import of the passage is, that through the 
instrumentality of Adam, all die, even so, through the instru- 
mentality of Christ all shall be made alive. In the same 
way they were in Adam, they will be in Christ. They died 
by him, or through him, as is asserted, verse 21, and are 
made alive by or through Christ, I cannot notice his other 
proof text now, [ Time expired.] 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



MR. MAN FORD'S THIRD SPEECH. 



Mr. Franklin has very kindly informed you that I was an- 
gry during the delivery of my last speech. I could not help 
noticing the countenances of the audience as my friend was 
making this charge. You, my hearers, seemed to inquire 
of each other, what does Mr. Franklin mean by such a wil- 
fully, unjust and unfounded charge? You know that I have 
exhibited no signs of anger whatever. The most charitable 
supposition I can make is, that my unsophistocated friend is 
unable to distinguish between earnestness and anger. It will 
require a man different from Mr. F. to make me} angry. 

He still harps upon the old question. If there is no hell 
in the future world, how can we enjoy salvation there ? For 
my part I think I could enjoy heaven very well, even though 
I could net look over its battlements down into the depths of 
an endless hell. But I suppose my friend thinks (with a cer- 
tain D. D.) that the pleasures of the heavenly host will be 
increased by the sight of the pains of the damned in hell. 
But does he believe in a salvation from hell? No, verily. 
His doctrine is, once in hell, always there. Hence there is 
no salvation from it. I believe, however, in a salvation 
from the "lowest hell." 

According to Universalism, says Mr. Franklin, there is 
no sin in the future world, and as some are not saved from 
sin here, where and when will they be saved from sin ? — 
Does my friend believe there is any insanity in the future 
world ? I suppose not. Well, as some men are insane, 
and hence are not saved from insanity here, and as there 
is no insanity in the next world to be saved from, when and 
where are they saved from it ? 

Well, all mankind are sinners, and all will, in God ? s own 
time, be holy and happy ; consequently all mankind will be 
saved from sin. Is Mr. F.'s intellect so obtuse that he can- 
not understand this ? X admit there is no sin, no burning 
hells or howling devils in the spirit-land, to be saved from ; 
but all sin and suffer during a portion of their life, and as all 
are to be delivered from these evils, ihey will be saved from 



UNIVERSAL SALVATION". 



l69 



ihem. A person may die a sinner, or insane, but in order 
for him to be saved from sin or insanity it is not necessary for 
him to be crazy or wicked one moment in the future world. 
I should think Mr. F. would be ashamed to talk as childish 
as he does. If he is a man he ought to put away " childish 
things." 

He simply travels for the fourth or fifth time his circle of 
ideas about the resurrection, in Matt, and Luke, but is care- 
ful all the time not to reply to my main points. He denies 
that Luke speaks of the resurrection of all, but thinks Matt, 
does, and so they contradict each other, according to his ac- 
count. I did not say those Evangelists contradict each other, 
I only said, that according to his notions, they do. Has Mr. 
F. no discrimination ] They both give an account of one 
answer our Savior gave the Sadduceess ; and if one of them 
represents Christ as speaking of the resurrection of all the 
dead, the other also must. Well, Mr. F. thinks it is proba- 
ble that Christ, according to Matthew, informed the Saddu- 
cees that all the dead are like the angels of heaven ; and 
yet he contends that Christ, according to Luke, informed the 
Sadducees that only part of the dead are like the angels, and 
are the children of God ! ! This is a most surprising posi- 
tion ; and it is only equalled by the assertion, that according 
to his views, they do not contradict each other ! ! Both rep- 
resent Jesus as speaking of all the dead. Matthew says they 
are like the angels of heaven, and Luke says they are equal 
to the angels of heaven, and then explains what is meant by 
that expression — shall be the children of God, shall die no 
more. The truth is, it is more evident from Luke than from 
Matt, that Christ spoke of the resurrection of all the dead, 
for Luke says, " He is not the God of the dead but of the 
living, for all " — the dead — "live unto him." That the ad- 
jective all qualifies the word dead cannot be denied. This 
then settles the point. All the dead live unto God ; which 
means they are like the angels, are the children of God, and 
shall die no more. All the dead are then accounted wor- 
thy of being raised from the dead, and of living in the spirit- 
ual world. It is supremely ridiculous to contend, as Mr. F. 
does, that Jesus, by the expression "are like the angels," 
meant no more nor no less than that the dead do not marry ! ! 
Such folly is not worth replying to. 



160 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



What Mr, Franklin said about my rule for determining tho 
meaning of words, I was pleased to observe, met with the 
visible disapprobation of the entire audience. You know, 
my hearers, that I gave ao such rule ; but that it is the de- 
formed offspring of his own distempered imagination. An 
effort at wit, on an occasion like the present, is bad. But an 
attempt to bolster up that effort with a falsehood, is, to pro- 
ceed from had to worse, Mr. Franklin thinks our Savior 
would answer my question, in reference to infants and idiots, 
very much to my confusion. But why did he not answer it] 
Because he could not. He charges me with an attempt to 
ridicule the words of our blessed Savior. You know that 
this is another wilful fabrication. I did no such thing, and 
God forbid I ever should. The dilemma which he has pre- 
sented to me on the fifth of Romans, 1 have looked at with 
some care. I have tried to find its horns ; but alas ! have 
only been enabled to find two — long ears. 1 repeat what 
I have already said, that I do believe all the apostle says in 
the fifth of Eomans, or in any other place ; but I do not be- 
lieve Mr. Franklin's interpretations of it. 

" Being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from 
wrath through him." Rom. 5: 9. In explaining this pas- 
sage I used the following illustration. I am now in good 
health, and hope to be saved from sickness while I live. 
How does Mr. Franklin meet this ? Why, by saying that I 
understand the present salvation to be a salvation from sick- 
ness, And, says Mr. Franklin, the most atrocious sinners 
enjoy this salvation from wrath. Would Mr. Franklin have 
resorted to a base, a wilful misrepresentation of my remarks, 
if they could have been answered in any other way? My 
hearers, your looks answer, no. But I beseech him, for his 
own sake, not to be any more guilty of such gross and man- 
ifest perversions. He should remember that this debate is to 
be published to the world. He has represented me as saying 
that to be saved from sickness is present salvation from sin ! 
O, shame, where is thy blush | But I will tell him once 
more what I did mean, or rather what I said. I now enjoy 
good health, (that is, a present salvation from sickness,) and 
hope to be saved from sickness through life. So all the 
Roman christians might have said, " We are now saved 
from sin, are justified, and reconciled, much more, we hope 



UNIVERSAL SALVATION. 



161 



" through Christ, by his life," to enjoy salvation to the end 
of our days." This is all that Paul means ; and the much 
more that Mr. F. harps on so long and loud, and says it is 
immortality beyond the grave, is no more or less than the 
grace they hoped to be partakers of during life. As God 
had saved, justified, reconciled them by the death of his Son, 
now that he has risen from the dead, and ascended on high, 
they had much more reason to hope for a continuation of 
salvation. If lie is right about this " much more," then 
none can ever enter heaven but such as have been justified 
on earth ; and hence the child of one sin, and all the count- 
less millions of the heathens will be damned eternally ! This 
unavoidable inference from his position is enough to prove 
it as false a3 sin is wicked. 

All his trash about my renouncing my " entire faith," my 
u first speech," " giving up the whole chase," is unworthy 
of any notice, and I shall not condescend to give it any, 
No one pretends mat Paul, in Komans, speaks of the resur- 
rection of the dead literally; but he does speak of a spiritual 
renovation, and says that shall be enjoyed by all that sin. 
But Mr. F. will have it, that all sin, but only part will be 
justified, made righteous. Dr. Clarke contends just as I am 
doing, that exactly as many as sin shall be made righteous, 
and he shows the absurdity of the contrary view, by read- 
ing two or three verses as they should read if righteousness 
is not to be equal in extent to sin. Hear him : Jg As by the 
offences of one, judgment came upon all men to condem- 
nation : so, by the righteousness of one, the free gift came 
upon some to justification, ver. 18. As by one man's diso- 
bedience, many were made sinners ; so, by the obedience 
of one shall some be made righteous, ver. 19." He adds : 
I Neither this doctrine nor the thing ever entered the soul of 
this divinely inspired man." I hope Mr. F. will profit by 
these remarks of the learned and pious Doctor. I beg of 
him to pay some attention to the 19th verse, where Paul 
teaches that just as many as sin shall he righteous. He 
has thus far passed that verse without comment. As I rely 
on that verse, I hope he will give it some attention. Mr. F. 
ought to know that no one can be saved in this world or in 
the world to corne,but by the grace of God; but it is an 
absurd position that no one can enjoy salvation beyond the 
11 



162 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION, 



grave unless he is saved here. Where did he get that no- 
tion ? Not from the Bible. Salvation is commenced here, 
and completed in eternity ; and the grace of God, through 
Jesus, commences and completes the work. I did not quote 
the words " when sin abounded, grace did much more 
abound," to prove universal salvation in eternity, and he 
knows it; but he prefers to misrepresent me. He misrepre- 
sented me in many other respects, but I shall let them pass. 
I envy not the man who is so reckless with his tongue. I 
hope he will try to govern that member better hereafter. 

All he said in his last speech on Eom. 8, 1 anticipated and 
refuted when I was up before, and it would have been 
better for him to have said nothing, than to have repeated as 
he did, refuted assertions. He again admits that Paul and 
his brethren did not belong to the whole Creation ; of course, 
then, they came by chance, never were created ; and as Mr. 
F. professes to be one of Paul's brethren, he does not belong 
to the creation of God either. As "the whole creation" only 
is to be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the 
glorious liberty of the children of God, and as Paul and his 
brethren, including Mr. Franklin and brethren, compose no 
part of the whole creation, they are to have no part in that 
glorious deliverance ! ! My wise and learned friend after 
this should be called "Doctor Franklin." To save Paul and 
his brethren, he says the apostle tells us, that they were "wait- 
ing for the adoption, to-wit, the redemption of our body." — 
Ah, St. Faul and Dr. Franklin, you will have to wait a long 
time, as you do not belong to the whole creation. There is 
no redemption for you. My friend must reverse his theory 
after this — send christians to hell and sinners to heaven. — 
But I am strongly inclined to the opinion that all mankind are 
embraced in the whole creation, and consequently all mankind 
are to be delivered from "the bondage of corruption into the 
glorious liberty of the children of God." These are more 
expressive terms than "holy and happy" are. He repeats 
his assertion that I referred to authority to prove that "crea- 
tion" or "creature," wherever it occurs, means all mankind. 
1 said that Dr. Macknight and others inform us that in the 
passage under consideration it means "ah mankind," "every 
human creature." When he makes a mistake, he will never 
give it up. 

1 now come to 1 Cor. 15. I have never contended that 



UNIVERSAL SALVATION, 



163 



even sc 9 in the 22d verse, relates to the quality, as Mr 5 F. 
knows ; but he delights to violate one of the commandments. 
Neither have I denied the agency of Christ in making all 
alive, but have expressly said that all the dead shall be raised 
"by Christ, in Christ." He admits that when Paul says, 
"As in' Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made 
alive," he teaches a universal resurrection. I want you to 
bear this in mind, for it is a very important admission,— 
The next point to be settled, is, in what condition will all the 
dead be raised 1 Paul says, raised "in Christ." My friend, 
in his first speech on this proposition, said this is a wrong 
translation ; it should read "by Christ," for, said he, to be in 
Christ would be making Christ "the place," and "this would 
be the most weak and childish thing that has appeared in the 
19th century." In reply, I proved that the New Testament 
teaches clearly that men can be in Christ. He could not re- 
sist tl^^estimony, and hence in his last speech he says, "there 
is summ state as being in Christ," I am glad his eyes are 
opened, and hope he will not call that doctrine weak and 
foolish again. The meaning of the passage then before us 
is evident. It teaches the resurrection of all the dead; this 
he admits ! It also teaches that all the dead will be raised 
in Christ; and Mr. F. admits "there is such a state as being 
in Christ." Whether "into Christ" and "in Christ" are sy= 
nonimous terms, is of no consequence as far as the subject 
before us is concerned, for he now admits "there is such a 
state as be^ig in Christ;" and I will pnly remark that the 
whole force of the preposition in is in the word into. He don't 
believe with Paul that men die "in Adam," and sneers at such 
a statement, and says it should read, "by Adam." For my 
part, I think the inspired penman knew best. 

After all my friend's hard labor, he has presented no evi= 
dence that all the dead -will not be raised in Christ. Remem= 
ber he has admitted that Paul teaches the resurrection of all 
the dead. Well, all the dead shall be raised in Christ; and 
as I remarked in a former speech, none will be raised out of 
him, but all in him ; raid Paul says, "To be in Christ is to be 
a new creature ; to have old things pass away, and have all 
things become new." The 22d verse of 1 Cor. 15, affords 
positive evidence of a universal resurrection to a heavenly 
life. Through the whole of this lengthy and important chap- 
ter, the apostle teaches those two great truths, as I showed in 



164 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



my opening speech on this proposition, to which my friend 
has paid no attention. I refer you to that speech. 

Although I introduced only one proof-text in my last speech, 
he could not find time to notice even that ! I hope it will be 
convenient for him to - give it some attention. What would 
the man do if I should do as he did when he had the affirma- 
tive — crowd my speeches with proof-texts ? He would be in 
despair, and leave the field. 

I shall now adduce three proof-texts together, viz : "Then 
shall the dust return to the earth, as it was : and the spirit 
shall return unto God who gave it." — Eccl. xii., 7. 2 "For 
of him, and through him, and to him, are all things ; to whom 
be glory forever. Amen." — Rom. 11: 36. 3 "And I, if I 
be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." — John 
12: 32. We learn from the first passage that the bodies of 
all must again return to the dust from whence they came. — - 
2d, That the spirits of all these bodies will return ur^oGod 
who gave them. No distinction is made — all spirits rWRved 
from God will return unto him. 

From the second text, we learn, 1st, That all things 
came from God. 2. That through him are all things, 
3. That to him are ail things, that is, all spirits shall return 
unto God who gave them. From the third text we learn: 
That so surely as Christ was raised from the dead — so surely 
as he has been exalted at the right hand of God, so surely 
will he "draw all men-* unto him. 

I do hope Mr. F. will endeavor to meet these passages 
fairly and honestly. "It is possible to invent a plausible quib- 
ble at any time ; but to meet an argument flirty is quite an- 
other matter. A great many points, and the most import- 
ant ones too, which I made while presenting my proof-texts. 
Mr. Franklin has not even deigned to notice. 

I will now partially recapitulate the arguments of my first 
speech on the present proposition : 

1. Christ, in answering a question of the Sadducees, 
plainly teaches that in the resurrection all shall be equal unto 
the angels in heaven—shall be the children of God, and shall 
live unto God. This agrees perfectly with the three proof- 
texts adduced in this speech, which teach that all spirits shall 
return unto God who gave them : that all things which have 
proceeded from God shall return to him : and that as Christ 



UNIVERSAL SALYATIOK. 



165 



was lifted up from the earth, and is now at the right hand of 
the Father, so will he draw ail men unto himself. 

2. We have learned that while men were sinners and ene- 
mies, God loved them ; that by the righteousness of one the 
free gift came upon all men unto justification of life ; that 
through the obedience of one, many, or all shall be made 
righteous ; that where sin abounded grace did much more 
abound ; "that as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might 
grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus 
Christ our Lord." Rom. v: 21. 

The scriptures speak of a universal death, but following it is 
a universal life; of universal corruption, but succeeded by- 
universal deliverance therefrom ; of universal condemnation, 
followed by universal justification. Sin may reach as wide 
as the universe, as deep as hell, and as high as heaven ; but 
the grace and love of God can reach wider , deeper, HIGHER 
still. 

3. We are taught by inspiration that all created intelligen- 
ces were made subject to vanity and decay, not willingly, but 
by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope- 
hope from a deliverance of their present bondage in corrup- 
tion into the glorious liberty of the children of God. This 
hope glows upon the altar of every bosom. Will the Jeho- 
vah extinguish forever that flame which he has lighted by the 
breath of his own mouth 1 

4. "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made 
alive. This scripture plainly teaches the universality of the 
resurrection. As to the effects of the resurrection, we learn : 
1. That as those who are raised, are raised in Christ, we are 
justified in saying they will be raised free from sin ; for "if 
any man be in Christ he is a new creature" The phrase 
"in Christ 95 is used about forty times in the Bible, and is 
always applied to those who are justified from their sins. 2, 
We learn that as all bear the image of the earthy, they shall 
also bear the image of the heavenly. 3, That as all are 
sown in dishonor, weakness, and corruption, so also shall 
they be raised in glory, power, and INCORRUPTION.— 
Thus, the extent of the resurrection is found to be universal- 
its effeets infinitely sublime, glorious, and holy. Death is to 
be swallowed up in victory ; Christ is to put down all rule, 
and all authority, and ail power, (that is, all opposing rule, 



166 



THEOLOGICAL. DISCUSSTON. 



authority, and power.) not even excepting the power of the 
devil himself. '"That through death he might destroy him that 
had the power of death, that is the devil/' — Heh. ii. 14. — 
The last enemy, death, is to be destroyed. J All things 
shall be subdued into Christ, then shall the Son himself be 
subject unto Him that put all things under him, that God may 
be all in all. 

I think my friend will not complain that I do not give him 
enough to do. He tried to make you believe, in his last 
speech, that I felt hampered and in difficulty. But you per- 
ceive, my hearers, that I am not. I could, in this speech, 
have offered several more proof-texts, but I have chosen not 
to do so. I wish Mr. Franklin to have full opportunity to 
answer, if he can, those which I have already advanced. — 
As yet he has only attempted some weak and childish quib- 
bles, but 1 do not despair; I still hope for better things from 
him. There is certainly room for much improvement, and 
I do desire that he will make it. He has hinted that there 
are but few Universal ists in the house. Well, what of that 1 
Watts says that " Wisdom shows a narrow path, with here 
and there a traveler." I hope Mr. F. will come boldly up 
to the work, and answer all my arguments, if he can, in a 
firm and candid manner. I should be much pleased if this 
discussion could be carried on without any unpleasant words 
or feelings. But my friend seems to think that he has full 
license grossly to misrepresent some of my plainest state- 
ments ; merely, I suppose 5 because he thinks me a heretic, 
and that he will do God's service to put me down, no matter 
in what way. 

[ Time Expired.'] 



UNIVERSAL SALVATION, 



167 



MR, FRANKLIN'S THIRD REPLY. 



Gentlemen : 

My friend, Mr. Manford, seems now angry with me for al- 
luding to his being angry in his last speech. But he read in 
the countenances of the audience that the charge of anger 
was "wilfully unjust and unfounded." He read this pleasant 
language like he reads some things in the Bible— where it 
was not written ! If he talks this way when he is in a good 
humor, I should not like to hear him get in an ill humor. I 
did not suppose he was angry with me, but with his incon- 
sistent and contradictory doctrine. 

He allows now, that I must be greatly wanting in discrim- 
ination, that I cannot see how a man can be saved from sin 
in the coming world, when there will be no sin there ! Well, 
he must excuse the obtuseness of my mind in that case, and, 
if 1 am not greatly mistaken, he will have to excuse the 
greater part of this audience in the same matter ; for I de- 
clare to you, I cannot see how any man can be saved from 
sin in a world where there will be no sin ! And what is 
worse, I cannot believe that he can see how such a thing 
can be. But he ingeniously asks if I believe there will be 
any insanity in the coming world. To this I answer no ; 
and there will be no salvation from insanity in the coming 
world ; nor have 1 ever been quite so green as to preach such a 
salvation, but he does preach a salvation from sin in a world 
where there will be no sin. He has now despaired of getting 
out of this difficulty, and says, "all mankind are sinners, and 
all in God's own good time will be holy and happy, conse- 
quently all mankind will be saved from sin." That was 
easily asserted ; but that is just what his brethren are so 
anxious to hear proved. But when will all be saved from 
sin ? Not in this world, we all know. Not in the resurrec- 
tion, for this would leave some men in sin thousands of years 
after death. Not after the resurrection, for he says there 
will be no sin after the resurrection. How is this matter to 
be understood ? If he has any light I hope he will let us 
have a little 



,168 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION, 



My friend can see no way to be saved from hell without 
first being in hell.' Well, in our "childish" way of think- 
ing, we had supposed that a man could be saved from death 
without first dying— that a man could be saved from drown- 
ing without first being drowned — saved from misfortunes 
without first suffering them ; but the glorious doctrine of 
Universalism has shed forth such a flood of light as to make 
it entirely clear, that to be saved from hell we must all go to 
hell first, and suffer as much as our sins deserve, and then 
be saved from the punishment due to us as sinners, and all 
this too through the boundless mercy of that God "who is 
love ! " If Universalists love their fellow-men in the same 
way they represent their God as loving, I would greatly pre- 
fer that they would not make me an object of their love and 
mercy. 

Mr. M. allows that I trace for the 44 fourth or fifth time" 
my circle of ideas touching Matt, and Luke on the resurrec- 
tion of the dead. You must bear in mind that he is perplexed 
and confused, and does not design to say " fourth or fifth" 
when I had only spoken twice. I should make worse blun- 
ders than that if I should attempt to sustain such a miserable 
theory. But you must bear with me if I do refer to these 
passages several times. You know I have to follow him, 
and as he goes to those passages in every speech, I must go 
there also if I follow him. But the truth is he hates to have 
me follow him so closely ; this is all that troubles him. 

Upon what does he now found his whole argument touch- 
ing the woman and seven husbands ? Why, simply what I 
have said all the time he could not prove, I have said in a 
former speech that possibly Matt. 22 : 30, may allude to all 
the dead, but that I did not know that it could be proved.— 
After due reflection I see nothing to prove it, nor did my 
friend try to prove it. He is then building his whole argu- 
ment on what I said possibly might be proved, and not on 
any thing he has proved, and, as I think, after mature reflec- 
tion, on what no one can prove. But, as I said before, no- 
thing is gained on the part of my friend, for it requires no 
extraordinary discrimination to see that Luke records some 
things that Matt, does not, and that Matt, records some things 
which Luke does not. This the gentleman allows makes a 
contradiction. Thomas Paine contended the same way. 



UNIVERSAL SALVATION. 



169 



but others, and greater men, allow that one witness stating 
something which another omits is no contradiction. 

He told you that Luke says, "He is not the God of 
the dead, but of the living," for all "the dead live unto 
Him," Luke does not say that. The gentleman cannot 
make out his proof without adding something to the language 
of Luke. He simply said, "He is not a God of the dead, but 
of the living; for all live unto Him." All whom? All the 
dead, Mr. M. says. But it does not say so. There is 
no rule of interpretation that can make it include all the 
dead, without making it include the living also, And it does 
not say that "all shall live unto Him," but simply, "all live 
unto Him," now* in the present tense ; it cannot, therefore, 
mean holiness and happiness in heaven, or else we are now 
all holy and happy in heaven ! 

The gentleman has an extremely convenient way of get- 
ting over difficulties, I am just beginning to understand 
his method of doing business. When I make an argument 
which he cannot answer, and so that he can see no way to 
get up some little quibble, he pronounces it a contemptible 
thing and unworthy of notice, and says that he will not con- 
descend to it. I was nor apprised of the elevation upon 
which he stands, Mr. M., please come down so as to stand 
upon a level with your humble servant. 

On the 5th of Rom., Mr. M. remarks: "If he is right 
about this 'much more, ? then none can enter into heaven hut 
such as have been justified on earth; and hence, the child of one 
sin and all the countless millions of heathens will be damned 
eternally. Ho is very good at drawing inferences, b.ut has he 
shown that I am not correct ? He has not, and he has made 
such a miserably weak effort, that there is but little of 
any thing to reply to. He is already involved in so many 
absurdities on the 5th of Rom., that it seems like a pity 
to involve him in any more. He has taken the position thai 
the death there spoken of, is moral death, and if this be 
granted, the resurrection from it is only a moral resurrection. 
In this, he has given it up as a proof text. But he has refer- 
red this passage to the future state, and I have shown that the 
grace promised in it is conditional— that it depends upon 
present justification and reconciliation. At this point, his 
argument is not only lost, but he has put into my hands 



170 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



an irrefutable argument in favor of the conditionally of the 
heavenly state. Against this, he has made no effort. In 
addition to this, he has asserted that the justification spoken of 
in this passage, is through righteousness ; yet he does not 
believe in imputed righteousness ; therefore, he makes justi- 
fication depend on our own righteousness ; and as many 
never are righteous in this world, they must either be lost, or 
else by righteousness in the coming world, obtain salvation. 

I have amply refuted the gentleman's argument on the 8th 
of Romans, and my objections still remain untouched. I 
have showed that in the same connection of his proof text, 
Paul makes heirship and glorification conditional. He says 
"if sons, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, 
if so be that we sulfer with him that we maybe glorified to- 
gether. " To this, he has made no allusion, and never can 
remove it. I then referred to several places where the 
words "creation" and "creature" occur, to show that they do 
not always mean "all mankind." This, he admits. I then 
referred to two distinct clauses in the text itself, to show that 
the same word could not in that place, mean "all mankind." 
This has received no reply, except a string of burlesque he 
called a reply. And even the burlesque is not so much directed 
against me, as against the holy apostle of Jesus. He asserts 
that "the whole creation travail and groan in pain, until now, 
and not only they, but ourselves also." This language Mr. 
M. burlesques and ridicules in the face of this christian com- 
munity! He need not say it is my view of it he ridicules, 
for his last speech will show for itself, to contain the most 
direct ridicule of the very language just quoted. 

He allows the language of the 8th Romans, is more 
expressive than the words "holy and happy" themselves. 
That depends on what a man wishes to express. But if he 
means that any words or any phrase in that passage, is more 
expressive of the position, that all mankind shall be finally 
holy and happy, than those words themselves, he is greatly 
mistaken. I deny that there is a word or a phrase in 
the chapter that means "all mankind." I also deny that 
there is any word that means holy, nor is there any word 
that means finally, or happy. Where then, is the proof 
of his position ? It is not only not in that passage, but 
it is not in the Bible. 



UNIVERSA L SALVATION. 



171 



The gentleman has planted his stake down at the 15th of 
first Corinthians, with some degree of confidence. I must, 
therefore, proceed to take it up before I resume my seat. 
He sticks to his favorite criticism, that "in Christ," is the 
place where all are to be made alive. I thought he would 
become ashamed of that, as it made Adam the place where 
all die ; but as he is incapable of that, I shall now proceed to 
show what would become of his argument, admitting "in" to 
mean place, in that passage. If "in Christ," simply means 
the place where all are made alive, there is no evidence 
in the passage, of a universal resurrection, unless it can 
be proved that all are in Christ : for the passage simply 
asserts that "in Christ shall all be made alive," and affirms 
nothing concerning those not in Christ. Remember that 
it is not affirmed that all are in Christ, but simply that 
"in Christ shall all be made alive." Not one word is said of 
those out of Christ. No cringing, Mr. Man ford ! You 
allow that in Christ, in this passage, means the place where 
all will be made alive, and you have already quoted the words: 
"as many of you as have been baptised into Christ, have put on 
Christ," consequently, those not "baptised into Christ," are not 
in Christ, and your proof text simply asserts the resurrection of 
those in Christ. How do you like your position Mr. M ? 
Does "in Christ" mean the relation of justified persons? 
Then the passage simply asserts the resurrection of the 
justified. Your proof text, therefore, does nothing towards 
proving that "all sinners will be saved." No sir, if your 
criticism is correct, then I deny that there is one word 
said of any but christians, in the whole passage. He 
repeated over and over again, in his last speech, that this 
passage taught a universal resurrection, but according to his 
favorite position, it simply asserts the resurrection of those in 
Christ, they that are Christ's, or, as he defines, the justified, 
and says not one word about any others. Yes, he de- 
fines those in Christ, to mean the justified. The justified 
then, will be made alive, yes and holy ! This is no new doc- 
trine. We all believe those in Christ, the justified, "they 
that are Christ's," will be finally, holy and happy ! 

Mr. M. now says, "whether 'in Christ,' " and 'into Christ' 
are synonymous terms, is of no consequence, as far as 
the subject before us is concerned." He is getting quite 



THEOLOCtICAL discussion. 



calm on the dogmatical assertion made in his last speech. 
If he will also give up that the balance of his unfounded as- 
sertions are of "no consequence," he will find very many 
who will perfectly agree with him. 

He simply told you. that I "don't believe that men die 
in Adam," because he could think of nothing else to say ? 
and not because he can make any one in this audience 
believe such a gratuitous and unwarrantable statement. You 
know how he has whined about my willful misrepresenta- 
tions, and charged me with stating untruths, and cautioned 
me again to stick to the truth, &c, &c. My religion 
does not allow me to use such language, and I leave you 
to judge who is guilty in all these cases. 

Mr. M. says, i What would the man do if I should do as 
he did when he had the affirmative — crowd my speeches with 
proof texts? He would be in despair and leave the field. " 
1 will tell you what I would do, if he would do as I did ; I 
would just give up the argument at once ; for I proved my 
affirmative from the most clear and plain passages of Scrip- 
ture ; but he never can do as I did, unless he affirms some 
other proposition. 

The three new proof lexis come not in a thousand miles 
of my friend's proposition. The first one simply asserts 
that " the spirit shall return to God who gave it," but does 
not say what for, whether to be judged, or saved, or what. 
The second is like it. It simply asserts that " to him are 
all things," but it does not say what for, to be judged I pre- 
sume. The third simply states that Chirst will draw all 
men unto hirn. But we all believe all will be drawn unto 
him, and stand at his judgment seat, and be judged accor- 
ding to their works. 

I did not notice the passage from Eph. 1, in my last 
speech. But it does nothing for my friend's proposition. It 
simply asserts that "in the dispensation of the fulness of 
times he shall gather together all things in Christ. I must 
hold my friend to his own rule. " In Christ " means the 
justified. He will then, in the dispensation of the fulness 
of times gather together all things both which are in heaven 
and on earth even in him, that is the justified in heaven 
and on earth, shall be gathered together. How do you like 
it 5 Mrc Manford ? The passage simply asserts the gathering 



UNIVERSAL SALVATION. 



173 



together all things in him ; and not one word is said about 
those things out of him. But another unfortunate thing is 
that the passage does not say what they are to be gathered 
together for. As the tares are to be gathered to be burned, 
the words gathered together, do not always mean salvation. 

Mr. Manford is coming out an annihilationist. Hear him, 
" None will be raised out of Christ, but all in him." Ac- 
cording to this doctrine, a man must be in Christ to secure 
a resurrection from the dead. What will become of all the 
heathens ? My friend quotes scripture to prove that persons 
are baptised into Christ, and that if any man is in Christ, he 
is a new creature : and now states that 11 none will be raised 
out of Christ." Yes, and to shut himself in, so that there 
could be no escape for him, he deiines * in Christ " to be in 
a state of justification. And now boldly stated that none 
will be raised from the dead out of that state, but all in it. — 
Yet hundreds of his own brethren have not been baptised 
into Christ, and consequently, I suppose, are not to be raised 
from the dead. What has he then proved by 1 Cor. 15, and 
Eph. 1 1 Why, nothing only that those " in Christ," "m 
him," the justified will be " made alive," "gathered togeth- 
er," Well, who ever denied that I No one here, I pre- 
sume. But this falls greatly below his affirmative proposi- 
tion, that " all mankind will be finally holy and happy." 

He professed to be much delighted that I had found out 
that there was such a state as being in Christ, and even af- 
fected some instrumentality in enlightening my benighted 
mind. But I have not perceived yet that the words, ** in 
Christ shall all be made alive," signify the justified state, 
but the passage simply asserts that by or through Christ shall 
all be made alive. This interpretation being correct, it is 
simply asserted that all shall he made alive, and my friend r s 
interpretation being correct, it is simply asserted that M in 
Christ shall all be made alive," and nothing is said of those 
not in Christ. To make this doubly strong, my friend has 
roundly asserted, that " none will bo raised out of Christ." 
It matters not therefore to me, which way he takes it. He 
is defeated either way. 

i. 1 am now through with my friend's proof texts, and 
have nothing farther to reply to ; and may therefore take my 
seat, or proceed to introduce new matter for the entertain- 
ment of the audience, Believing now that my friend in* 



174 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



tends to keep back some of his principal proof texts, that I 
may not have the opportunity to reply to his arguments on 
them, I am determined to introduce one of them for him.— 
The passage I allude to is Isai. 45 : 23, 24. " I have sworn 
by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteous- 
ness, and shall not return, that unto me every knee shall 
bow, and every tongue shall swear. Surely shall one say, 
in the Lord have I righteousness and strength : even to him 
shall men come: and all that are incensed against him shall 
be ashamed." Thse words, Universalists quote in connec- 
tion with the following : " Wherefore God hath highly ex- 
alted him, and given him a name which is above every name ; 
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things 
in heaven, and things in the earth, and things under the 
earth ; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ 
is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Phil. 2: 9, 10, 
11. My friend quoted the above passage from Isaiah, in the 
Liberty debate, and found the difficulty it involved his sys- 
tem in, and therefore he wishes to keep it out of the present 
discussion. In quoting these passages, to prove universal 
salvation, our Universalian friends apply the oath of -God to 
the coming world, and the balance to this. In this they 
have better precedent than most of them are aware of. — - 
The apostle Paul makes a short quotation from the same 
passage, and makes an application of it, that I like much 
better than the Universalian application. Rom. 14 : 10, 
Paul asserts that "we shall all stand before the judgment 
seat of Christ." And what passage does he quote to prove 
it ? The very passage that my friend sometimes quotes to 
prove that all will be saved. But let us hear the apostle 
piove that "we shall all stand before the judgment seat of 
Christ." The following is his proof: "For it is written, 
as I live saith the Lord every knee shall bow tome and every 
tongue shall confess to God." Rom. 14 : 11. Thus you dis- 
cover, my hearers, that the very words Paul quotes to prove 
that "we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ," 
my friend quotes to prove that all will be saved. Universalists 
apply this passage to the world to come, and they are right in 
that, for Paul applies it to prove that world, and that "we 
shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ." The 
judgment is then after death, as our Universalian friends ad- 
mit, by referring this passage to the coming world. 



UNIVERSAL SALVATION- 



175 



2, I will now spend a moment in answering some quer= 
ies found in a Universalist tract. Question 1. M As we are 
required to love our enemies, may we not safely infer that 
God loves his enemies ? If he loves them, will he punish 

" them more than will he for their good ? " God poured out 
fire and brimstone from heaven on the Sodomites, engulphed 

• Pharoah and his hosts in the Red Sea, overflowed the ante- 
diluvian world with a flood, and flowed the streets of Jeru- 
salem with the blood of its unbelieving inhabitants, Was 
all this for their good — for their reformation ? These were 
his enemies, and if he treats them thus, and loves them at the 
same time, have we any evidence, that his love will ever in- 
duce him to treat them any better I But we are asked the 
quest 1 on : " Is God without variableness or even the shadow 
of turning V 9 I answer, that he is. But what of that ? Why 
nothing, only if God punishes sinners now, and is without 
variableness or the shadow of turning, he will never cease 
punishing them. But the question is asked in this tract, " If 
God loves his enemies now, will he not always love them? " 
Is this good, sound logic ? Then if God punishes sinners 
now will he not always punish them ? 

Surely the argument is as good in the one case as it is in the 
other, if it be true, that because God loves sinners now, he 
always will love them; it must be equally true, from the same 
principle of reasoning, that if God loves sinners now, and 
punishes them notwithstanding, that he always will punish 
them. But if we are further asked: "Is it just for God to 
love his enemies, and be kind to the unthankful and evil in 
this life ? Would it be unjust for him to exercise the same 
love and kindness toward them in the future world?" To the 
latter of these queries we answer no. But how kind does my 
friend say Gocl is to the unthankful and evil in this lite ? Why, 
just kind enough to torment them in hell. W 7 ell the tract be- 
fore us asks the question : "Would it be unjust for him to 
exercise the same love and kindness towards them in the fu- 
ture world ?" Certainly not. This is just what I contend 
he will do. If, then, Universalian logic is worth anything, 
and. as they say, if God punishes man with hell torments in 
this life, and it is just to treat them with the same love and 
kindness in the world to come, it will be just to inflict hell 
torments upon them perpetually. My friend will have to 



176 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

change his logic, and contend that God is changeable, and 
that although he does not love the wicked in this life so as to 
punish them, he will love them in the coming world, so that 
they shall not be punished. 

;^We are sagely asked: "If you had the requisite power would 
you not deliver the whole family of man from sin and misery? M 
And I would ask : "If you had the requisite power would you 
not deliver the whole family of man" from sickness, sorrow, 
pain, and death in this life ? Surely, you would. Are you, 
therefore, better than God. who could, but docs not do it f or 
is it not that you are more ignorant than God of what he 
ought to do. If we had the requisite power we would do 
many other things which God would look upon as perfect 
foolishness. 

We have the following from* this same Universalis* tract: 
"If God would save all mankind but cannot, is lie infinite in 
power ? If God can save all mankind but will not, is he in- 
finite in goodness P If God can save all mankind from all 
the sighs, groans, pains and deaths of this life, and will not, 
is he infinite in goodness I If he would save all men from 
these calamities and cannot, is he infinite in power ? He does 
not save all men from these things which we strive so hard 
to save each other from. Yet I suppose he is infinite in 
power and goodness. But this very learned interrogatory 
can be applied to the hell of which my friend speaks in this 
life. If God would save all mankind from punishment in 
this world but cannot, is lie infinite in power I If he can 
save all men from punishment in this world but will not, is 
he infinite in goodness ? Well, it is certain that he does not 
save all men from punishment in this life. Will t niversa- 
lists, therefore, dare call in question his infinite power or 
goodness * If they do. I shall not. I would much sooner 
question their judgment of what infinite wisdom ought to do. 

Now, if my friend had any additional arguments to offer 1 
should be glad to hear them. Let him bring forward his ar- 
guments in due time, that I may have a fair opportunity to 
reply to them. I do not wish to follow him over and over the 
same things every speech, but I wish him to advance to 
something new. If he does not, I shall proceed to state his 
a-'guments and make my replies, and let him work his way 
the best way he can. If he will instance a single point in 



UNIVERSAL SALVATION 



177 



which I have not made a sufficient reply, it shall have my 
special attention hereafter, I hope he will get in a good hu- 
mor, and come on like a man in his next speech, And if he 
runs out before his time is out, as he did before, he can read 
Paige's garbled extracts from Dr. Clarke, &c.,and repeat his 
arguments over again. [Time expired,] 



MR, MANFQRD'S FOURTH SPEECH , 



Respected Audience : 

Mr. Franklin told you in his last speech that I preach M a 
salvation from sin in a world where there is no sin," I must 
be allowed to say the gentleman is mistaken ! I preach no 
such doctiine ! To use his own classic language, "I have 
never been quite so green as to preach such a salvation !" 

Because I say that mankind, in the future world, will enjoy 
a salvation or freedom from sin, as well as from other evils to 
which they are now liable, he thinks I teach a salvation from sin 
in that world ; and he cannot see how this can be when there 
is no sin there to be saved from! The difficulty^ with my friend 
is he has got the matter so confused in his mind that he cannot 
understand a plain proposition! I instanced a case of insanity 
and asked him how a man who lived and died insane could 
be, in the future world, saved from insanity ? The man, he 
must admit, will be saved from imanity — yet there is no in- 
sanity in the future world ! He laughs at the idea, and says 
he is "not green enough to preach such a salvation." Very 
well ; preach it or not, he believes it ! 

I tell the gentleman once for all — men are saved from this 
world into the next; consequently from all the evils of this 
world — sin included. Not saved from sin in the next world, 
for there is no sin there to be saved from ; — but saved in that 
IS 



178 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



world from the sin of this, and from all the evils "that flesh is 
heir to." "He that is dead is freed from sin ;" and " when 
they shall rise from the dead" they shall he " as the angels 
in Heaven" — saved from all the evils of mortality, and from 
death itself, "which is the last enemy." I hope the gentle- 
man now understands what I mean by a "salvation from sin." 



Mr. F. thinks that I would make out a contradiction be- 
tween Matthew and Luke in their account of Christ's eonvor- 
sation with the Sculducees. Here the gentleman is mistaken 
a^ain ! I do not believe they contradict each other ; but I 
will tell you what it is, my friends, Mr. Franklin cannot make 
out his case, without at the same time making a contradiction 



between these two evangelists. The only chance he has is on 
the ground that Lnke contradicts Matthew! No doubt he 
would like to throw the responsibility upon me ; but I will not 
allow him to do this. 

He says, "I found my whole argument," drawn from Mat- 
thew 22 : 30, upon the position that Christ alluded to the res- 
urrection of " all the dead;" but this fact he thinks I cannot 
prove! Strange, indeed! To what resurrection did the 
Savior allude if not to the resurrection of all the dead? Is it 
not the same resurrection for which Paul hoped — "a resur- 
rection both of the just and the unjust?" — and which he 
taught in his letter to the Corinthians — "as in Adam all die, 
even so in Christ shall all he made alive ?" Is it not the same 
resurrection, or blessing, which God promised to Abraham, 
through his seed, which is Christ, saying — " In thee and in 
thy seed shall all the nations, families, and kindreds of the 
earth be blessed? "If the gentleman thinks not, let him show it. 

The Sadducees said : "Therefore, in the resurrection, 
whose wife shall she be of the seven ?" What did they mean 
by "the resurrection ?" Did they not allude to the resurrec- 
tion of all the dead 1 Christ answers them — "In .the resur- 
rection they neither marry nor are given in marriage." What 
does he mean by "they," unless it be all the dead ? Are not 
"all the dead" to be included in the resurrection ? 

Suppose Christ only meant a part of the dead — that in the 
resurrection of a part of the dead, they would neither mar- 
ry nor be given in marriage— would this have answered the 
Sadducees ? What did they know about a partial resurrec- 
tion i If Christ only meant apart of the dead, which part 



UNIVERSAL SALVATION. 



179 



was it ? And how did the Sadducees know ? Did he mean 
the righteous ? Then perhaps the Sadducees" meant the 
wicked ! So his answer did not meet their question ! If 
this were the case, he should have said " in the resurrec- 
tion of the righteous but if he had said so, it would not have 
answered them, for they did not ask in relation to the resur- 
rection of the righteous. They said, " in the resurrec- 
tion "whose wife shall she be? — meaning as much the 
resurrection of the wicked as of the righteous. And if 
Christ did answer their question, (and who will doubt it?) 
then he said " in the resurrection," the wicked as well as the 
righteous, "will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 
but " — both wicked and righteous- — " will be as the angels of 
God in Heaven." Consequently, they will be " holy and 
happy." 

"But the very next verse shows that the Savior could not 
have meant a partial resurrection. He continues : " Butas 
touching the resurrection of the dead, have you not read " 
&c. What does " the resurrection of the dead " mean, un- 
less it be the resurrection of all the dead ? The gentleman 
says he don't know but it may mean " all the dead," but he 
wants me to prove it ! My friends, have I not proved it over 
and over again ? The text itself proves it ! What more 
proof does my opponent want ? The fact is, he is disposed 
to quibble about trifles, in order, if possible, to shun the force 
of my argument, and divert your attention from the subject! 
He wants me to " come down upon a level with him !" My 
friends, I must be excused from doing so, until he is disposed 
to pursue a more honorable course. 

I rely on Matthew's account because he was an immediate 
disciple of our Savior, and was probably present at the time 
the conversation took place between Christ and the Sadducees. 
Luke was not ; and he most likely obtained his account from 
third persons, for it is not at all probable that he was present. 
-Mark's account also agrees with Matthew's. Besides this, 
Matthew wrote much earlier than Luke. The probability is, 
that Matthew relates the conversation just as it took place, 
word for word, neither more nor less ; while it is equally proba- 
ble that Luke relates it in quite different words from what were 
used by our Savior. But unless we say that he means the 
same as Matthew, we make out a contradiction ; and I shall 



180 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



not be surprised if Mr. Franklin attempts this, for it is his 
only chance. Matthew's account teaches the " resurrection " 
and happiness of all, as clearly as it does the resurrection 
and happiness of any. Mark that ! 

In trying to avoid the force of my argument on this text, 
Mr. Franklin took the position that the phrases—" neither 
can they die any more " — " ail live unto God " — " children 
of God" — "equal unto the angels," &c, only meant un- 
married ! This position he has now abandoned ; but denies 
that our Savior was speaking of all the dead ! He might as 
well deny that he was speaking of any of the dead ! . 

His quibble about the tense in the phrase " all live unto 
him," don't amount to any thing. Christ only meant to 
teach that those whom we call dead, are not, in reality, dead 
— that they are still living — for " all live unto him." They 
have only passed into another existence. " For of him, and 
through him, and to him, are all things." It is useless for 
my opponent to try to get round my argument on this pas- 
sage. He may change ground, and take as many positions 
as he pleases ; his efforts will prove unavailing, and will 
only involve him in difficulty. I tell him again that his only 
chance is to come out and say that Luke contradicts Mat- 
thew, and teaches a partial resurrection ! Let him do this, 
and 1 will attend to him. 

What if I have said the death spoken of in Rom. 5, is a 
moral death ? Why, says Mr. F., in that case it would only 
prove a moral resurrection. Very well — this is all I have 
contended for. If all enjoy a mora I resurrection — if all are 
" made righteous " by Christ, all will be holy and happy ; 
and this is just what the passage teaches. 

My friends, there is one thing I wish you to notice particu- 
larly, and that is this : Mr. Franklin will not tell you what 
is meant by the word "creation," in the 8th of Romans. 
No, he will never tell you, nor even give you a hint, what 
it means ! Why is this? You will observe he is careful 
not to deny that it refers to rational beings, but only denies 
that it means all mankind. He dare not deny that it means 
intelligent beings, for this, he knows, would not do ; but he 
has not candor enough to admit it. 

The fact that the " creation " or " creature," is said to be 
exercised with an "earnest expectation" — to "travail in 



UNIVERSAL SALVATION, 



181 



pain " — =to " wait for the manifestation of the Sons of God|" 
— to "groan," and to " hope," is sufficient to convince any 
man of sense that the term creation means rational and in- 
telligent beings. And I have no doubt but my friend here 
is very well convinced of this fact. But he dare not admit 
it ; for if he should, that moment he would yield the whole 
point. For you will notice that fc< the whole creation " is 
mentioned, which is equivalent to "the whole intelligent 
creation," or the whole human family. And this " whole 
creation," you will recollect, is " waiting for the adoption," 
and is to be 44 delivered from the bondage of corruption, 
into the glorious liberty of the children of God." But Mr. 
Franklin will neither deny nor affirm, on this point; for to 
do either would be ruinous to him. You see, my friends, 
the difficulty in which he is placed. Was ever man in a 
more sad predicament ! In contemplating his most unenvia- 
ble position, it is difficult to tell whether it were better to 
laugh or to pity ! We might smile at his extreme unwil- 
lingness to give us his opinion in regard to this word ; and 
we might pity when we reflect that he cannot do this without 
either admitting what would be fatal to his cause, or involv- 
ing himself in still greater difficulties ! 

But he seems to think he can escape all these difficulties, 
by referring to other portions of this chapter. 

But this will not do. 1 believe every word of the chapter. 
Let him meet my argument fairly, or acknowledge that he 
cannot do it. He will probably tell you that it is not his place 
to give you the meaning of the word "creation." Then let 
him adopt my definition ! I have told you what the word 
means ; and if he is not satisfied with my definition, let him 
tell what it does mean, This he is bound to do — or else hold 
his peace ! But, as I have already said, he will not give us 
any definition of this word ; he is altogether non-committal ! 

I have told you, my friends, that the word "creation," in 
the 8th of Rom., means intelligent creatures ; this, Mr. Frank- 
lin dare not deny. 1 also affirm that it means mankind — the 
whole human family ; this, he dare not admit. Will he be 
so good as to tell us in his next speech what kind of intelli- 
gent creatures it does mean— and how many 1 Perhaps he 
will say, as did Mr. Hall, that it means infants ! Will he dare 
to take this ground ? No, it is is too childish ! Here is a di* 



182 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



lemma, and one that has horns, not long ears; horns, too, 
that must eventually gore my friend most prodigiously ! 

My friends, I tell you now, Mr. Franklin is "a used up man" 
on the 8th of Romans ! He has made a signal failure, as all 
may see from his last speech. He has referred to several 
passages, to show that "creation" don't mean "all man- 
kind!" But what passage has he referred to where the 
whole creation occurs ] Not one ! nor can he find one, ex- 
cept the passage under consideration. I have admitted that 
the word ktisis, translated "creature and "creation," does 
not necessarily and always mean the "whole human family;" 
but here we have the whole creation. The strongest proof 
he has offered — and I leave you to judge how strong that is — 
is simply this : "I deny that there is a word or a phrase in 
this chapter that means 'all mankind-.' " This is his proof! 
Well, it is the best he could do. The "whole creation," my 
friends, cannot mean less than "all mankind; of this, I have 
no doubt, Mr. Franklin is aware. If, then, it does not mean 
"all mankind," it means more; so that "all mankind" are in- 
cluded in it. And the "whole creation" is to be "delivered 
from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of 
the children of God" — consequently, "all mankind" will en- 
joy this deliverance. 

He has as signally failed on the 5th of Romans, as he has 
on the 8th. I called on him particularly to pay some atten- 
tion to the 19th verse of that chapter, as I placed great reli- 
ance upon it: "For as by one man's disobedience, many 
were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many 
be made righteous." The many in the one case is just as 
extensive as in the other — both being the same in the original. 
He has passed this matter in silence ! 

His effort on the 15th of 1 Cor., is not a whit better ! He 
first admitted that Paul, in the 22d verse, taught a resurrection 
of all mankind ; but he has changed ground again, and now 
says that none but Christians are to be made alive ! Well, 
then, none but Christians die in Adam ; for all that die in 
Adam are to be made alive in Christ. 

The gentleman makes himself quite ridiculous in talking 
about Christ being the place where mankind are to be made 
alive ! I have never said that Christ was the place where 
they are to be made alive ! If he can comprehend how all 



UNIVERSAL SALVATION, 



183 



mankind can die in Adam without Adam being the place 
where they die — without their being, soul and body, in him, 
literally and personally — he can perhaps see how they can be 
made alive in Christ, without Christ being the place where 
they are to be made alive ! It makes "Adam the place where 
all die !" What contemptible nonsense! Does he not know 
that all men die in Adam I Does not the apostle say so ? — 
What is meant by dying in Adam ? Not dying in him, liter- 
ally and personally, surely! They die in Adam, that is, in 
the image of Adam — in the fleshly, mortal, and earthy nature; 
"as is the earthy, (Adam,) such also are they that are earthy" 
— so, in Christ, that is, in the image of him, "the heavenly/' 
in the spiritual, immortal and heavenly nature, shall all be 
made alive. The word "in," my friends, has no reference to 
place ; it means the state or condition in which all are to be 
raised. I care not whether it denote the condition or the 
means — whether it means in Christ, or by Christ — the result 
will be the same. All that die in or by Adam, or in the earthy 
nature, are to be made alive in or by Christ, or in the 
heavenly nature. The apostle teaches. the resurrection of 
all mankind ; this, Mr. Franklin has admitted, and I shall 
hold him to it. But he could not help admitting it, for if Paul 
does not teach a universal resurrection, then not only is that 
doctrine not taught in the Bible, but no language can be framed 
that would teach it ! And just so sure as ail will be raised 
from the dead, so sure will all be "in Christ," or "bear the 
image of the heavenly." 

My friend's quibble that none will be made alive in Christ 
but those who die in him or who get into him in this world, is 
scarcely worth noticing. He don't believe a word of it him- 
self! Besides, if he did, it would be answer enough to tell 
him that the apostle is against him. Instead oi saying that 
those only who die in Christ shall be made alive in him, he 
says those who die in Adam, shall be made alive in Christ !— 
Thus you see, Paul flatly contradicts the gentleman ! 

I referred to the fact that men are said to be "in Christ," and 
to "put on Christ," &c, in this world, in order to show that 
there was such a thing as being in Christ, without being in 
him literally, or without understanding it in the ridiculous 
sense of place ! What does Mr. Franklin understand by be- 
ing in Christ in this world ? Does he think Christ is the place 



184 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION, 



where they are ? I have never advocated the absurd doctrine, 
my friends, that in order to be made alive in Christ, we must 
first get into him in this life. I know that Christians are said 
to be "in Christ," to be "new creatures," &c, but this does 
not entitle them to the resurrection state, or the joys of that 
world ; they are amply rewarded in this world. It is enough 
for me to know that I bear the image of Adam, to be assured 
that I shall be made alive in the image of Christ! — "For as 
we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear 
the image of the Heavenly." 

Perhaps I have said enough on this subject. You see, my 
friends, that the gentleman is 'swamped' here. He made a 
very lame effort in his last ; but what better could he do ? — 
"It is hard to kick against the goads!" I am inclined to 
think that the less he says on the subject, the better it will be 
for him. I will not press him further on this point, but will 
now attend to what he says in reference to the proof texts in- 
troduced in my last. 

The passage which declares that "the spirit shall return to 
God who gave it," he passes, by simply saying that it "does 
not say what for, whether to be judged, or saved or what," — 
True enough; and in the absence of any such information, 
we have a right to conclude that it is "to be saved," or to be 
happy = The text says it shall return to God who gave it ; 
consequently it must have been with him before. Was it hap- 
py or miserable before it came from God ? If happy, then 
will it be happy when it returns to him again. 

The passage in Rom. 11 : 36, declares that "of him, and 
through him, and to him, are ail things," but as it "does not 
say what for," Mr. Franklin says he "presumes" it is to be 
judged ! No, my friends, he does'nt "presume" any such 
thing ! He knows better. He knows that Paul was not 
wont to speak in this way when he had any reference to the 
subject of judgment. I "presume," my friends, that you 
will hardly "presume" that this is what the apostle meant 
when he said that " to Him aie all things — to whom be glory 
forever!" The most rational "presumption" is, that "all 
things" will return to God to be happy. 

Christ says he will draw all men unto him. But this Mr. 
Franklin thinks means that he will draw all men unto him 
to be judged ! Wonder if he really does think so ? The 



UNIVERSAL SALVATION. 



185 



time was when none came to Christ except those drawn by 
the Father : " No man can come to me, except the Father 
which hath sent me, draw him." Jno. 6 : 44. Were they 
drawn to him to be judged \ No, for he had just said (verse 
37,) "him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out." — 
But it was soon to be different. Christ was to be "lifted up 
from the earth" — was to be crucified— and exalted to the 
right hand of the Father, a Prince and a Savior. He was 
then to draw men unto him — and not only men, but all men. 
'•And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men 
unto me." Do you think he will do this, my friends, in or- 
der to judge them ? I "presume" not. 

Eph. 1 : 10, he thinks does nothing for my proposition.— 
Still he admits that it asserts the gathering together of "all 
things in Christ." He says he "must hold me to my rule," 
viz., that "in Christ" means the justified. I have said, my 
friends, that to be in Christ is to be in a justified state or con- 
dition, and if this is what he calls my "rule," I am willing to 
be held to it. But the great difference between the gentle- 
man and myself, is this : while I understand the apostle to 
mean just what he says, viz., that all shall be made alive in 
Christ, and that all things shall be gathered together in him 
he understands — or pretends to understand — him to mean 
that all that are in Christ shall be made alive in Christ ! and 
all that are in him shall be gathered together in him ! This 
is the way he affects to understand these passages, and argues 
as though I understood them in the same way; and then pre- 
tends to wonder that I should think they favor my proposi- 
tion ! He knows better. I tell him now, what he already 
knows, that 1 understand Paul to mean, in 1 Cor. 15: 22, 
the same as if he had said, "All mankind shall be made 
alive, and not only made alive, but made alive in Christ;" 
and in Eph. 1:10, the same as if he had said, "All things 
(or intelligences) shall, in the fullness of times, be gathered 
together, and not only gathered together, but gathered to- 
gether in Christ." And I now tell him furthermore, to stop 
misrepresenting me on this point, and to do it immediately, 
for I will not allow it any longer ! Whether his view or mine 
be correct, is another question, and is for you to decide ; but 
for him to stand up here and persist in wilfully misrepresent- 
ing me, and trying to father upon me his silly, absurd, and 



186 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



ridiculous interpretations of scripture, is what I cannot and 
will not allow ! 1 am in earnest, and hope the gentleman 
understands me so. 

He next says I am " coming out an annikilalionist t$ 
And why so ? Because I said " none will be raised out of 
Christ, but all in him." And is a man an annihilationist be- 
cause he believes all will be raised in Christ ? My friends, 
were I to talk as Mr. Franklin did on this subject, I should 
feel that you would be perfectly justified in saying that I had 
made a fool myself ! I do not say that he has done so ; nor 
would I have you understand that I think so — but were I to 
do so I should feel myself justly obnoxious to the charge ! 

The gentleman will tell you, to be in Christ is to be a "new 
creature" — that it means a justified state. I have admitted 
this, and have showed you that all are eventually to be in 
Christ, for all are to be made alive in him. The gentleman 
dare not admit that all will be made alive in Christ ; for he 
knows to do this would be equivalent to admitting that all 
will be 44 justified" — holy and happy. He admits there will 
be a resurrection of all mankind, but denies that any 
will be "made alive in Christ," but such as are in him, i. e. 
get into him in this life. To meet him here I have said that 
"none will ever be raised out of Christ," and I repeat it ! I 
assert it, my friends, here, and in the face of the world — 
"none will ever be raised from the dead out of Christ!" 
The Bible knows of no resurrection out of Christ ! If ever a 
mortal man — mortal now, but then immortal — is raised from 
the dead, it will be in Christ. " I am the resurrection and 
the life," said the Savior. " God has given to us eternal life, 
and this life is in his Son." The Bible, i repeat, knows of 
no resurrection out of Christ. Will all mankind be raised 
from the dead ? Then will all be immortal and happy — for 
all shall be made alive in Christ. 

Mr. Franklin thinks, " according to this doctrine a man 
must be in Christ in order to secure a resurrection from the 
dead." Not so. He must be " in Adam" — this is all the 
title he needs " to secure a resurrection from the dead." 1 
wish the gentleman could understand me ! I repeat it, my 
friends, and may you never forget it ; none will ever be rais- 
ed from the dead out of Christ, but all will be raised in 
him ! 



UNIVERSAL SALVATION, 



187 



Mr. Franklin introduces Isa. 45 : 23, 24, and Phil. 2 : 9~ 
11, as proof-texts for me. The gentleman is certainly very 
kind ; but I will inform him that 1 can attend to my own bu- 
siness ! I can introduce my own proof-texts ! I feel under 
no obligations to pay any attention to them ; still I will re- 
mark that they fall far short of proving what he intended. I 
tell him I do not carry these passages beyond the resurrec- 
tion. They are to be fulfilled within Christ's reign. Though 
Paul says " we must all stand before the judgment seat of 
Christ " and refers to the passage in Isa. to prove it, there is 
nothing said in opposition to the final salvation of all man- 
kind. Christ's judgment seat does not extend beyond the 
resurrection ! Let the gentleman bear this in mind. 

My opponent having got tired of debating with me, has lit 
upon a " Universalist Tract," and has joined issue with that! 
I have no doubt, if he will give the tract a fair chance, but 
he will find himself beat again ! But as I have matters of 
more importance to attend to, I shall not interfere in the dis- 
pute, but will proceed to introduce some more evidence in 
favor of the proposition that all mankind will eventually be 
made holy and happy. 

" For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh 
and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same ; 
that through death he might destroy him that hath the power 
of death, that is, the devil ; and deliver them, who, through 
fear of death, were all their lifetime subject to bondage." — 
Heb. 2 : 14, 15. 

Here we are told in the first place, that the devil is to be 
destroyed ! And not only so, but "the children," the parta- 
kers of "flesh and blood," are la be delivered from that 
"bondage" which results from a "fear of death." How well 
this corresponds with the 8th of Romans. The whole crea- 
tion shall be "delivered" from the "bondage" of corruption, 
into the glorious liberty of the children of God. These 
passages are undoubtedly parallel. But notice — "deliver 
them who through fear of death, were all their lifetime, sub- 
ject to bondage." Why subject to bondage through fear 
of death 1 Because they feared there was no life beyond 
death — or if a life, then a miserable one; they were in 
doubts and in fears. The gospel, when correctly understood, 
and believed, delivers men from this bondage, this fear 



188 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



of death ; for they see a bright immortality ahead — not only 
for themselves, but for all that partake of "flesh and blood," 
all that "die in Adam," for all mankind. And not only 
so, but Christ is to deliver them, who were all their lifetime 
subject to bondage. This then reaches beyond their "life- 
time." Yes, all who were subject to bondage all their life- 
time, and who died in this "bondage," are to be "delivered" 
—and delivered, too, into the glorious liberty of the children 
of God! 

I must again refer to the 15th of 1 Cor. The 26th verse 
is so much to the point, that I must quote it here. "The last 
enemy, death, shall be destroyed." My friends, Mr. 
Franklin has been trying to make you believe there is 
a worse and greater enemy beyond death. But death is the 
last enemy of man, and that is to be destroyed ! And when 
is it to be destroyed ? At the resurrection. Death can only 
be destroyed when "swallowed up in victory," when all shall 
triumph over it — when the last child of mortality shall 
be raised from the dead. This will be at the general resur- 
rection — when all who have died in Adam, shall be made 
alive in Christ. And recollect, death is the last enemy ! 
There is to be no enemies beyond the resurrection — neither 
of God nor man. No sin— no suffering — no devil to tor* 
mem ! The devil, as we have just seen, is also to be 
destroyed — but this will be before death is destroyed, for 
death is the last enemy ! Sin is destroyed at death — and 
death, which is the last enemy, will be destroyed at the res- 
urrection ! Remember this, my friends, for it is of itself, a 
pillar in our most holy faith — firm as the rock of ages ! 

One more passage, and I am done. 1 allude to the 
passage in Revelations, (5: 13,) where John caught a view 
in the far distant future, of the final triumph of the Redeemer, 
of the "restitution of all things." Hear him. "And every 
creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the 
earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in 
them, heard I saying, blessing, and honor, and glory, and 
power, be unto Him that siteth upon the throne, and unto the 
Lamb, forever and ever." 

[Time expired.] 



UNIVERSAL SALVATION. 



189 



MR, FRANKLIN'S FOURTH REPLY. 



Mr. Chaikman; 

I should think myself imposing on the good judgment 
of this respectable audience, should I intimate such a thing, 
as that they would be liable to look upon the speech you 
have" just heard, as containing any argument, I had taken 
the gentleman's arguments so completely out of his hands, 
that he saw no possible chance to redeem them, or to save 
himself from a most manifest discomfiture. Finding himself 
in this predicament, he seemed at times to get into per- 
fect paroxysms of wrath, and could scarcely refrain from 
calling me a fool. Now, there wa3 something in that 
evil spirit manifested in his last speech, that I do not so well 
know how to reconcile with one branch of his doctrine, He 
believes, you know, that men are punished for all their 
sins, in this life, and that they get their reward, whether 
it be good or bad, as they pass along. He also, believes that 
he is a minister of Christ, and that he is now contending 
for the faith once delivered to the Saints, and that I am 
a preacher of false doctrine, and that too, one of the worst 
and most damnable of all the false doctrines ever preached, 
Well, you know that the curse of God, is upon the 
preacher of any other doctrine than that preached by the 
apostles, and that if any man adds to or takes away from 
that doctrine, the plagues of the book shall be added to him 
or his part taken out of the book of life. Well, now if 
all this comes to pass in this life — if all this punishment 
falls upon a man as he goes along, and if I am the preacher 
of false doctrine upon whom it falls, I can assure you, 
that it is quite a comfortable hell, and that I enjoy my- 
self exceedingly well. But if my friend is now receiving the 
reward of the righteous, it is strange that he is not more 
happy ! If I should become so confused and perplexed 
as he did, in his last speech, I should look upon it as 
any thing else but happiness, I do not wish to make the im- 
pression that Mr, M. is a bad man by this, for I do not 



.190 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION* 



believe I could restrain myself any better than he does, were 
I in the same predicament. 

The gentleman still keeps trying to explain his salvation 
from sin in a world where there will be no sin ; but 
every effort he makes, only makes the matter worse. He 
said he had never been so green as to preach salvation from 
sin in the coming world. But not twenty words afterwards, 
he contends that man will enjoy a salvation from sin in 
the future world. Thus you see, that in one breath he is not 
so green as to preach such doctrine, and in the next, he says 
he believes it! According to this, he is not so green as 
to preach what he believes. Now if I should accuse him of 
this, as he has now accused himself, he would talk in as de- 
termined language as he did in his last speech, when 
he declared that he would not stand it. 

Being saved from sin, with him, is the same as being 
saved from insanity. But I deny that any one is saved 
from insanity in the world to come. There is no in- 
sanity in that world to be saved from. Men have been 
saved from it in this world, but insanity is not a disease of the 
soul, but of the body, and consequently, the death of the 
body terminates it ; but sin is a disease of the soul or spirit, 
and consequently, the death of the body does not termin- 
ate it ! 

He quoted the words, "He that is dead is freed from 
sin." — Rom. 6: 7, to prove that man is saved from sin after 
death. But the apostle is not speaking of the death of 
the body in that passage. The Roman brethren with 
the apostle himself, were dead in the sense in which he there 
speaks. At the 5th verse he says, "If we have been planted 
together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the 
likeness of his resurrection." The apostle and his brethren 
then had been planted together, in the likeness of the death 
of Jesus, but their bodies were still living. By referring to 
the 4th verse, you will see that they were not only dead with 
him, but had been buried with him, and raised up to walk in 
a new life. They were then living in body, walking in a new 
life, but "dead indeed unto sin," as expressed in the 11th 
verse. It is no trouble for my friend to decide that the death 
of the body or literal death, (2 Tim. 4: 1,) is spiritual death, 
and thus, when he comes to Roman 0; 7, to explain death as 



UNIVERSAL SALVATION. 



191 



he row says, we are "not saved from sin in the next world, 
for there is no sin there to be saved from," he has given up 
the whole ground, and admitted thathe has no salvation from 
sin, for we all know that all men are not saved from sin in this 
world. If then, all are not saved from sin in this world, as 
he must admit, and if they are "not saved from sin in the next 
world," as he now states, they must be saved in their sins or 
not saved at all. The gentleman must have patience with me 
— I cannot understand this doctrine ! ! And what is worse, I 
am certain no one else understands it, for there is no under- 
standing to it. 

Mr. Manford denies making Matthew and Luke contradict 
each other; but I ask the audience what was the meaning of 
his argument in the last speech, to try to prove that Matthew 
had a better opportunity to state the language of the Savior 
correctly than Luke ? Was it not to offer some apology for 
some mistake on the part of Luke ? He need not make any 
such apologies for me, for I do not believe they contradict 
each other; but it appears now that he does, and he is inclined 
to palm the blunder on Luke, and defend Matthew, as he had 
the best opportunity to know that he told the truth ! 1 had 
thought one inspired man had as good an opportunity to know 
the truth as another, and also to know that he told the truth ! 
But if they were liable to be mistaken, I do not see how he is to 
prove his proposition from them! If he intends to deny the cor- 
rectness of what these writers say, I do not see what he refer- 
red to them for. It is true, Luke says, he "had perfect under - 
standing of all things from the very first " but Mr. M. has 
now decided the case that he was mistaken, for Matthew had 
the best chance to know that he was right, Why did the 
gentleman quote Luke at all? If Luke had only left out that one 
expression, "they that shall be accounted worthy to obtain 
that world," all would have been well. 

I do not know that I ever saw any one so completely dis- 
armed as the gentleman was when he approached the passa- 
ges to which I have just referred. He wanted to prove some- 
thing, and could hardly tell what ! He asserted and re-as- 
serted, emphasized and strained his lungs, as if determined 
to make you believe him, whether he could prove his doctrine 
or not ! But did he make any one believe that " they that 
shall be accounted worthy," means all mankind? And did 
he offer any argument to prove it ? I think not. 



192 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



Mr. Man ford, notwithstanding all his blaster about misrep- 
sentation, has asserted in every speech, substantially, as he has 
in this, that I have taken the "position that the phrases — 
'neither can they die any more' — 'all live unto God' — *equal 
unto the angels,' &c, only meant unmarried!" To this I 
have hitherto made no reply, as I expected he would continue 
to repeat it over and over again ; and even now, it is scarcely 
necessary, for there is no person present who does not know 
that I have taken no such position. I have said, and still say, 
that the point of comparison before the Savior's mind, when 
he uttered the words "but areas the angels of God in hea- 
ven," simply consisted in this, that they neither marry nor 
are given in marriage. 1 do not say they shall not be like 
the angels in any other respect, but 1 say that was the point 
the Savior spoke to in that passage, and that I am not cor- 
rect, he has not and cannot show. I maintain, as I have done 
all the time, that the simple expression that "in the resurrec- 
tion they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as 
the angels of God in heaven," does not say it means, nor 
can it prove, that all mankind will be holy and happy in 
heaven. 

Mr. Manford is now to confine himself to Matthew, as he 
allows he has given the words of the Savior precisely as they 
were delivered. He therefore has nothing to do with the 
words, "all live unto him," as Matthew does not record them, 
but simply remarks, "God is not the God of the dead, but of 
the living." His proof, then, is narrowed down to the jprom* 
ise, that "in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given 
in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven," and 
that "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." — 
This is the language that he quotes to prove that all man- 
kind will be finally holy and happy. If he has not utterly fail- 
ed on this passage, I am at a loss to know how any one could 
fail. As he has attempted no proof that "they that shall be 
accounted worthy" includes all mankind, it is unnecessary 
that I should say anything about it, further than simply to 
say that " they that shall be accounted worthy" does not 
mean all the dead, and these were the persons m the resur- 
rection that Luke spoke of, and we have no evidence that 
Matthew spoke of any others. 

Mr, Manford now admits that there is no literal resurrec- 



St I V E 8 S A L SAL V A T 1 07\ . 



193 



tion spoken of in .Romans 5, and has taken the position that 
the death there spoken of was moral death, and the resurrec- 
tion from it only a moral resurrection. To be morally dead 
is to be in a state of sin. and a resurrection from it is a con- 
version from a state of sin ; and as we have no account of 
any conversions from a state of sin, only in this iife, it ali|be- 
longsto this life. And if the justification or salvation spoken 
of in this passage is all in this life, I cannot see how it proves 
that all mankind will be finally holy and happy, for surely all 
men are not holy and happy in this life ! But if this moral 
resurrection or conversion is not in this life, then men go into 
the eternal state sinners, and there will be sin in that world 
after all. 

But if men are justified and made righteous by a moral 
resurrection or conversion in this life, I cannot see how they 
will be made holy and happy in the resurrection. Universal 
lists have heretofore made the 5th of Romans and the 15th 1 
Corinthians parallel passages; but my friend, on this occasion, 
has strayed off, and contends that one is a moral death and 
a moral resurrection, and that the other is a literal death and 
a literal resurrection ! This is what I call Universalism in 
an agony. This passage is now completely and fairly given 
up, and proves nothing for the gentleman. 

Mr. Manford insists, and importunes, and begs that T should 
tell him what the word "creature" (Horn. 9th) means. Why 
is he so anxious that I should tell him what it means ? Of 
what use is it for me to tell what it means ? None under the 
sun, only to give him an opportunity to make a string of ob- 
jections, and thus furnish him something to say, to get of? 
from the true issue. He is aware that it is a passage that 
commentators are greatly divided about, and that I could 
scarcely take any position that some one has not objected to; 
and he would be glad to get me on the defence, while he 
would stand and make objections. But it is for him to tell 
what it means; and if he does not do it, there is no proof in. 
the passage. If I can show that it does not mean what h& 
says it does, he is defeated, whether I know or tell what it 
does mean or not. This I have done triumphantly, and the 
objections I have made to his interpretations, he has passed 
over with the silence of death, knowing that they were unan- 
swerable I have shown that the word ( 'creature 5 ? occurs in 
13 



194 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION, 



numerous instances where it could not possibly mean all 
mankind. The words "every creature," in the commission, 
would be just as liable to include all mankind as the words 
"whole creation ;" yet, every reflecting mind will see that 
they do not include all mankind, for an immense number of 
mankind had died, others were infants and idiots, all of whom 
were included in this "every creature" of the commission. 
Indeed, the words translated "whole creation," Rom. 8 : 22, 
and "every creature," Mark 16: 15, are the same in Greek, 
and are translated precisely alike in some translations. Why 
then need the gentleman strain his lungs over and over the 
words "whole creation?" Do they prove anything more by 
repeating them over and over again 1 

But I need not go to any other passage to prove that the 
words " whole creation" do not mean all mankind. The 
very next verse proves that beyond the possibility of a doubt, 
Here are the words once more. " And not only they," (the 
whole creation) " but ourselves also, groan within ourselves, 
waiting for the adoption, to wit, die redemption of our body," 
At verse 19, we have " the creature" and " the Sons of 
God," at verse 21, we have " the creature " and " children 
of God," and verses 22 and 28 we have " the whole crea- 
tion " and " not only they, but ourselves also," and still the 
gentleman thinks hard of me because I will not admit that 
" creature" means all mankind. Not only so, but I have 
showed him that verse 17 makes eternal salvation conditional . 
The apostle says, "If children, then, heirs; heirs of God, 
and joint heirs with Christ : if so be that we suffer with -him, 
that we may he also glorified together." 

When my friend, Mr. M., got those things before Kim, in 
his last speech, he became confused, and began to tell what 
a fix 1 was in, and exclaimed, " It is difficult to tell whether 
it is better to laugh or to pity ! " I thought he was about to 
say he did not know whether to laugh or to cry. But I sup- 
pose he will stir up the deep fountains of his soul, and look 
with pity on me, a poor blinded creature, that cannot be 
shown the error of my way, and saved from it by his lovely 
language. But 1 must confess that 1 want a religion that 
will keep me in a better humor than his does him. 

I have finally succeeded in making the gentleman heartily 
sick of his position relative to the words " in Christ," He 



tMlV&ftS'AL SALVATION, 



195 



how allows it is most ridiculous to talk of 44 in Christ " being 
the place where all will be made alive. I am truly glad to 
hear him cry out so lustily. Well, if 44 in " does not mean 
place, what does it mean ? He says, 44 it has no reference to 
the place ; it means the state or condition" Well, then 
44 in Adam " means the state or condition. Who were in, 
this Adamic state ? He will answer, all mankind. Well, 
all who are in that state or condition die. Who are in Christ? 
The gentleman himself has quoted Galatians 3 : 27, as ap- 
plicable to the point. How does it read ? 44 As many of 
you as have been baptised into Jesus Christ, have put on 
Christ." Now he has made 44 in Christ," in his proof text 
precisely the same as 44 into Christ" in the passage just 
quoted, and has contended that it signifies a state of justifies^ 
tion. Well, this state of justification or of being in Christ is 
in this life; and if 4 * in Christ" in 1 Cor. 15: 22, means 
this state, the passage simply asserts that 44 in Christ "—in 
this state — 44 all shall be made alive," and does not intimate 
any thing about any others, but those u in Christ " or in this 
state. And twill add further, that if 44 in Christ" in that 
verse means in a justified state, there is not one word about 
the resurrection of any but .the saints in the passage, Now, 
I do not believe it means any such thing. The passage sim- 
ply asserts that 44 as by Adam all die, even so by Christ all 
shall be made alive." But if he will have it that 44 in " there 
qualifies a state or relation, then the resurrection of not one 
soul is referred to in the text but those in that state or relation, 
The gentleman will conclude that it is ridiculous yet. 

I Rave admitted, and still admit, that the apostle teaches a 
resurrection of all mankind ; but if he is right about the word 
i», he does not say one word about the resurrection of any, 
only those 44 in Christ," in the whole chapter. He has denied 
the resurrection of any out of Christ, hence he must either 
be a soul-sleeper, or a destruction ist, for if he is right in re- 
fering to Gal. 3 : 27, to show the meaning of 44 in Christ, " 
all mankind are not in him, and those not in him will not be 
raised. This is his own doctrine, not mine. I take no such 
positions, but run here he must, or abandon his logic on the 
words 44 in Christ," 

Mr. Manford says, he 44 referred to the fact that men are 
said to be 4 in Christ/ and 8 to put on Christ/ &c, in this 



196 



THKGtOGTC: A L DTSC IT SSTOX . 



world, in order to show that there was such a thing a_s being 
• in Christ.' " That is exactly the way I understood him, 
and in so doing, he has made "into Christ," Gal. 3 : 27, and 
"in Christ," 1 Cor. 15: 22, parallel expressions — indeed, he 
has made them mean precisely the same thing, and conse- 
quently he will make out simply a salvation for those 44 bap- 
tized into Christ," but even that is too large, for I deny that 
all the baptized will be saved. But what is worse for him, is 
that after making those 44 baptized into Christ," the same as 
those " in Christ," 1 Cor. 15: 22, he denies the resurrec- 
tion of any out of Christ, thus denying the resurrection of 
any not baptized ! ! Now remember that this is not my po- 
sition, but simply Mr. Manford's, traced to its legitimate re- 
sults. My position is that" into Christ," Gal. 3 : 27, is into 
a justified state or relation, and that 44 in Christ," 1 Cor. 15 : 
22, is by or through Christ ; but, so far as our argument is 
concerned, I do not care which way he takes it. This pas= 
sage is then literally taken from him. I was not surprised 
that the gentleman should talk about " kicking against the 
goads " — the goads were suggested to him by the sense of 
feeling. 

On the words, 44 the spirit shall return to God who gave 
it," 1 remarked, in my last speech, that 44 we are not in- 
formed what for, whether to be judged or saved, or what." 
Mr. M. says, 44 True enough ; and in .the absence of any 
such information, we have a right to conclude that it is to be 
saved." I had thought the gentleman was trying to prove 
his doctrine, but in this, I find* I am mistaken, and in the 
absence of the proof, he has a right to conclude that all will 
be saved ! Indeed ! Where did he get such a right? Before 
I can get to make more than a single reference to this proof 
text, he gives it up, and admits that it does not say what we 
go to God for, whether to be judged, saved, or what, but he 
has a right to conclude that it is to be saved" Yes, and this 
concluding that things are true without any evidence, has 
been the source of the gentleman's whole theory. 

Mr. Manford is not pleased that I should 44 presume," that 
the tendency to God, is to be judged I will not then say " I 
presume" but 1 have proved most clearly and triumphantly, 
while on my first proposition, to all who believe God's holy 
bcek, that all men will go to God, and that to be judged, and 



UNIVERSAL salvation. 



197 



that he has made nothing deserving the name of an offset to 
my argument, is well known in this assembly, without my 
repeating it. 

The same reply is applicable to the words. 44 It* 1 be lifted 
up, I will draw all men unto me." Still he has enveloped 
himself in a dilemma on these words, that must not pass 
without notice. He makes the words, 44 draw all men unto 
me," and 44 he that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast 
out," to be of synonymous import. Well, the latter clause 
evideutly has reference to coming to him in this life, and if 
the former means the same, it is some kind of drawing to 
him in this life, and cannot prove that all men will be finally 
holy and happy. But there is a slight difference between 
drawing to him, and coming to him. I should greatly prefer 
to be of them who come to him. 

Most certain!}* do I admit the gathering together 4 ' all- 
things* in Christ " But I do not admit that the words 44 gather 
together," mean 44 finally holy and happy," nor do I admit 
that 44 all things in Christ," includes those things not in 
Christ, Therefore the passage has no bearing on the ques- 
tion. Mr. M's position is, that in Christ here, and in first 
Corinthians 15: 22, is in a justified state. The passage, 
then, simply asserts the 44 gathering together of all things in 
a justified state," and consequently proves nothing for hum 
His pretty language about my standing up and wilfully mis- 
representing him, &c, &c, is all understood in this commu- 
nity, and needs no especial comment from me. He says he 
is " in earnest, and he hopes I will understand him so." Why 
does he give us this information at this stage in the debate ? 
Has he not been in earnest till just now? It is to be hoped 
he will remain in earnest hereafter. 

After quoting Isa. 45: 23, 24, and Phil. 2: 9, 10, all 
through the country, and especially in the Liberty debate, 
and applying it to the resurrection state, the gentleman now, 
circumscribes his application to the reign of Christ pi} earth 
because Paul applies his proof-text to 44 the judgme^ seat of 
Christ." He now says, 44 it does not extend beyond the re- 
surrection!" Bo it known then, and read of all men, that 
the oft quoted and long tried proof-text — the oath of God, is 
now given up, and does not refer to the resurrection state ! 

The gentleman informs us that the devil is to be destroy- 



198 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



ed. Well, lei us enquire when the devil is to be destroyed. 
He will not say before the resurrection, but he will tell you 
when death is destroyed, which is to be at the resurrection. 
" The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." . 1 Cor. 
15: 26. This will be at the resurrection. Well, the next 
thing to enquire into, is the question, what is the devil ? In 
a private conversation with me, the other evening, Mr. Man- 
ford said. "the devil is a great scare-croic." But he is now 
exulting that a "great scare-crow" shall be destroyed ! — 
What an infallible evidence of the salvation of all mankind ! 
But Universalists tell us sometimes that the Roman Gov- 
ernment was the devil — that Judas was a devil — that Peter 
was a devil, &c, &e. Well, then, my friend exults that the 
Roman government, Judas, and the apostle Peter are to be 
destroyed at the resurrection ! ! Not only so, but he brings 
this forward as an evidence, that all men will be holy and 
happy ! I know that the hope of the gospel destroys the 
fear of death in the christian man, in this life, but I cannot 
see how that can prove that all mankind will be finally holy 
and happy! It says nothing about being finally holy and 
happy. But if it does not, he " has a right to conclude " 
that all will be happy ! 

Mr. Man ford does not like to believe that " there is a worse 
and a greater enemy than death." That is because he does 
not like to believe his Bible, for it speaks of "a sorer pun- 
ishment than death without mercy." I should like to hear 
him explain what that sorer punishment than death without 
mercy is! 

The gentleman has involved himself in a pretty prediea* 
ment in quoting Rev, 5: 13. and applying it to the resurrec- 
tion state. When on the first proposition, he applied the 
holy city, New Jerusalem, where all tears are to be wiped 
away, and no death, sorrow, or pain ever should come, to 
the church here on earth ; but now he allows that "John 
caught ^ view of the distant future, of the final triumph of 
the Redeemer, of the * restitution of all things.' " Very good. 
Let us read on and see what else John saw while he had 
that " view of the distant future." Just a few verses after, 
he says, " And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even 
as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of 
a mighty wind : and the heavens departed as a scroll when 



UNIVERSAL iALVATIOtf 



193 



it is rolled together ; and every mountain and island were 
moved out of their places: and the kings of the earth, and 
the great men. and the rich men, and the chief captains, 
and the mighty men, and every bond man, and every free 
man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the 
mountains; and said to the mountains and the rocks, Fall 
on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth upon the 
throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb; for the great day 
of his wrath is come : and who shall be able to stand. " 

In this you have what followed immediately after what is 
described in the verse quoted by my friend. The verse quo- 
ted by him refers to the judgment seat of Christ, where ev- 
ery tongue shall confess, and then the opening of the seals 
follow, quickly succeeded by the wonderful things spoken 
of in the quotation just made. In his next speech, I shall 
expect him to try to bring that 44 distant future " which John 
saw, into this world. Every flounder he will make, like the 
horse in the mire, will only involve him deeper. 

Having now takeu from Mr. Man ford every position he 
has taken, and even refuted his doctrine with his own proof 
texts, I shall proceed to quote a few passages from the infal- 
lible oracles of God, as counter proof, which never were 
harmonized with Universalism and never can be. 

ft. 44 Verily I say unto you, all sins shall be forgiven un- 
to the sons of men, and blasphemies whercwithsoever they 
shall blaspheme : but he that shall blaspheme against the 
Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eter- 
nal damnation." Mark 3 : 28, 29. 

This passage presents a case of transgression that 44 hath 
never forgiveness, " and if any are saved, guilty of this sin. 
they must be saved in sin, for if they are never forgiven, 
they are never delivered from sin. The passage bids defi- 
ance to all cavil, and I fear no attempt he will make or can 
make. It bids defiance to all human ingenuity to get round, 
over, or by it in any way. 

2. 44 What is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole 
world, and lose his own soul ? or what shall a man give in 
exchange for his own soul ? " Matt. 16 : 25. 

The only attempt any man can make to escape the force 
of this passage, is to say that soul here means life. Accor- 
ding to this view of the subject, the first christians did wrong 



200 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



in " not counting their lives dear unto themselves/ 5 and 
pecially was it wrong for our Savior to say, " Except you 
bate } r our own life also, you arc not worthy of me.'' And 
I may add, that it was extremely wrong for our Savior to 
lay down his life of himself, for "what will it profit a man 
"io|gain the whole world and lose his life 1 " Even old Ste- 
phen, at this rate lost his life truly, and gained nothing, for 
if he had denied Jesus, he might have saved his life, and 
been sure of heaven too, if Universalis**? is true ! But that 
holy man of God believed that by losing his life, he would 
save his soul, which would be great gain. The import of 
the passage is clear, and unequivocal. If a man shall con- 
cern himself all the time for the present life, he will lose, 
the next. 

3, " And I say unto you, my friends, be not afraid of 
them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they 
can do : but I will forewarn you whom you shall fear : fear 
Him, which after he hath killed, hath power to cast into 
hell ; yea, I say unto you, fear Him." Luke 12 : 4, 5, 

This passage bids defiance to ail cavil. The language is 
not only literal, but particularly arrayed, so as to leave no 
escape for Universalism. It teaches us not to fear men, who 
can only kill the body, but to fear God, who alone hath 
power after that, to cast into hell. Matt, records it, " fear 
not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the 
soul : but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul 
and body in hell.'' Here is a casting into hell after the 
body is killed, or a destruction of the soul and body in hell. 
And it is on account of God's power \o destroy in hell, that 
Jesus commands us to fear him. 

I ask then, if a man may commit an offence for which he 
shall never be forgiven, lose his own soul, and after the death 
of the body, be cast into hell, both soul and body, how is 
such an abandoned creature ever to be saved ? There is 
surely no salvation for him, but he is given over to the jaws 
of destruction to be devoured. In view of such terrible lan- 
guage as this, it is not strange that Paul should say, " knowing 
the terrors of the Lord, we persuade men," and that he 
should remind us of God's own faithful language, "ven- 
geance is mine ; 1 will repay, saith the Lord;" and again 
" the Lord shall judge his people." i; It is a fearful thing to 



T7> T IYEESAL SALVATION. 



201 



fall into the hands of the living God." Let us regard Him 
who has spoken from heaven, and not forget that he has 
threatened the destruction of the soul and body, after the 
death of the body, in hell. He willjjnot be trifled with, but 
demands obedience of the mightiest spirit that burns before 
his terrible throne. " The Lord God omnipotent reigns." 

[ Time expired.] 



MR. MAN FORD'S CLOSING SPEECH 



Respected Auditors : 

There is perhaps no better evidence that Mr. Franklin 
cannot answer my last speech, than the fact that he, in the 
outset, pronounced it destitute of argument! Surely the 
gentleman will never suffer any from excessive modesty ! 
He is one of those men who can make up in boasting, what 
they lack in argument. In this respect, I confess that he has 
the advantage of me; and were the assertions true, which he 
made in his last speech, or even a respectable portion 
of them, I might well begin to fear he also had the advan- 
tage of me, in point of argument! But I flatter myself that 
this intelligent audience possesses discrimination enough to 
distinguish between argument and bare assertion. 

I must confess there is quite a difference between the gen- 
tleman and myself, in our way of thinking and feeling ! He 
Matters himself with the delusive idea, that he has taken from 
me my main proof-texts, and seems to imagine that I 
feel very bad under the circumstances. Now, I must 
assure you that I consider my proof-texts very safe, even 
after hearing the gentleman's last speech ; and that I have 
not the least consciousness of feeling bad, perplexed, or 
in any difficulty whatever, on account of what he has done, 
nor even in anticipation of what he may yet do. Though I 



29? 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



do not wish to boast, yet this is precisely my situation ; and 
if it will do my friend, Mr. Franklin, any good thus to 
talk and boast and console himself, why I am willing for him 
to do it ; for the Lord knows he has a hard enough time of 
it, and needs all the consolation he can get. I am not 
disposed ' Ho cry" for the gentleman, but really after hearing 
his last speech, I can but feel to pity him — not so much 
for his inability to defend his doctrine, with its errors 
and absurdities — for this I expected before hand but for, 
I hardly know what to say, but I will say for either his fool- 
hardiness, or his ignorance ! I allude to his still persisting 
in his stupid criticism on the idea of being "in Christ,'' 
and being "saved from sin in the future world !" In regard 
to the phrase "in Christy' I referred to Gal. 3: 27, where 
persons arc said to be "baptized into Christ,'' and to "put on 
Christ and to the saying : "lie that is in Christ is a 
new creature," (2 Cor. 5: 17,) to show that there is such a 
thing as being in Christ, in this world. This I did, in order 
to refute the gentleman's absurd idea that in Christ meant 
place ! Believers are said to be in Christ in this life— -that is, 
in a certain qualified sense, they are in his image ; and being 
in this slate or condition, they are justified. Now, I have 
not said to be in Christ, in the resurrection, means sim- 
ply ^justification"— it means to be in his image— in a state or 
condition, which also implies or includes ''justification." As 
those who are "in Christ," in this world are in a "justified " 
state, so also, will those who are "in Christ" in the resurrec- 
tion, be in a "justified" state; and 1 have triumphantly 
shown that all mankind, or all who die in Adam, will be "in 
Christ " in the resurrection. This, I affirm 1 have proved, if 
language can be framed that will prove it. It is not those 
who are **in Christ" in this world, in the figurative sense of 
being in him by "baptism," or by "faith/ 7 that are to be made 
alive in him, in the resurrection : but all who die in Adam, 
are to be made alive in Christ. This is the point, and 
the gentleman cannot avoid it, although he has tried hard to 
do so ! He sometimes affects to misunderstand me ; but 
whether he understands me or not, I am inclined to think this 
audience understands me. Mr. Franklin, no doubt, feels the 
argument if he don't understand it ! 

The gentleman allows that the passage, "As in Adam 



VJH I VERSA L S ALV A T I ON 



203 



all die, even so, in Christ shall all be made alive,*' should 
read, "As by Adam all die, even so, by Christ shall all 
be made alive." Then, instead of saying, "If any man 
be in Christ he is a new creature," it should read. "If 
any man be by Christ," &c. And "Blessed are the dead that 
die by the Lord"— "So also is the resurrection of the dead : 
It is sown by corruption, it is raised by incorrupt ion ; it 
is sown by dishonor, it is raised by glory ; it is sown by 
weakness, it is raised by power;" "always abounding by the 
work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labor 
is not by vain by the Lord !" Thus, you see what kind of 
theology our friend would teach, by changing the preposition 
ui to by ! But let us notice a few more examples, beginning 
with the first word in the Bible, or as Mr F. would say, 
by the Bible. "In the beginning, God created the heavens 
and the earth," i. e., by the beginning. "Let there be lights 
in the firmament," i. e. by the firmament. "In the waters of 
the sea," i. e. by the waters of the sea. In the 2d chapter of 
Genesis, we read : "In the seventh day, in it he rested," i. e, 
by the seventh day, by it he rested. "He planted a garden 
in Eden," i. e. by Eden ; "in the midst of the garden," i. e, 
by the midst of it ! The Greek word in all these places, as 
in the text under consideration, is en; and if it does notpri- 
marially and definitely mean in, then our first parents were 
never in the garden of Ede* — Noali and his family were 
never in the Ark— Pharoah and his host were not drowned in 
the Red sea—the children of Israel were nevei in the wilder- 
ness, and John did not come "crying in the wilder- 
ness" and "baptising in Jordan," but came "crying by 
the wilderness" and "baptizing by Jordan !" Jonah was not 
three days and nights in the whale's belly, but only by 
the whale's belly ! Lazarus was not in the grave, but 
only by it ; the rich man was not in hell, but only by hell ! 
Murderers, fornicators, thieves, liars, &c, shall not have 
their part in the lake which burnetii with fire and brimstone, 
but only by it ! Neither Christ nor any body else was ever 
baptized in the river Jordan, or in any other water, but 
but only by it ! The controversy between the Campbellites 
and the Pedo-baptists, for the last twenty years, has been on 
this very little word — the former contending for the first and 
primary meaning of the word, viz : in, while the others 
claimed that it might sometimes mean at, near to, ^by, 



£04 



IHEOLOCtICAL DISCISSION. 



&e» And I will venture to say that were Mr. Franklin to get 
into a debate with a "sprinkler," on the subject of baptism, 
he would manfully contend that en means in, now and 
forever, and he would probably say as did Mr. Campbell, in 
his debate with Mr. Maccalla, after showing some of the ab- 
surdities of his opponent's translation of the word, "These 
and ten thousand new discoveries, originate from this new 
translation of en, made for the relief, and by the talents 
of, infant sprinklers.'' 

I deny the gentleman's criticism. The primary meaning 
of the Greek word en, is in ; while the corresponding word, 
for by, is the Greek did. And although en is sometimes 
translated by other words than that of in, yet, as Mr. Campbell 
says in a note, page 313, in his debate with Maccalla ; "Ev- 
ery meaning ascribed to en, can be resolved into in.'' The 
first and primary meaning of the word, therefore, is lis, and 
is correctly translated in the passage : "As in Adam all die, 
i. e. in his image or nature, even so, (the same all) shall be 
made alive in Christ, i. e. in his image or nature." 

My friend may labor till the day of his death, and he can 
never make en, mean by ; and I only alluded to the matter, 
to expose his unwarrantable assumption — not that his trans- 
lation would in the least affect the completeness of the argu = 
ment in favor of the final holiness and happiness of all ; for 
whether made alive in Christ or by Christ, they are to be im- 
mortal, incorruptible, glorious, and heavenly, and, as in this 
life they "bear the image of the earthy," so in that life shall 
they "bear the image of the heavenly." 

Now in regard to salvation from sin in a world where 
there is no sin. This the gentleman thinks a paradox. I 
thought I made this matter so plain in my last, that even he 
who runs might read ! I tell you, my friends, there are none 
so blind as those who won't see. I perceive I shall have to use 
more plainness of speech. This question was raised by Mr- 
Franklin himself, by saying that men could not be saved in 
the future world, for there would be no sin there to be saved 
from. Now, notwithstanding all that has been said on this 
subject, the only difference between us is, that while he be- 
lieves that a part of mankind will be saved from sin in the 
future world, 1 believe that all will be. I presume I am not 
mistaken in this assertion. Does Mr, F. believe that any 



UNIVERSAL SALVATION-. 



205 



are "saved from sin" in this life ? If he does, he believes a 
great deal more than I do — and a great deal more than lie 
can prove ! I presume the gentleman will allow that people 
are no better now than they were in the d^ys of the primi- 
tive church ; and that if any body were ever 44 saved from 
sin" in this life, it was the apostles and early christians. — 
But hear what the beloved apostle John says, in writing to 
his christian brethren. " If we say that we have no sin, we 
deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us," 1 Jno. 1: 8. 
44 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, 
and sinneth not," Eccl. 7 : 20. Here it is emphatically de= 
clared that there is not even a just man on earth that does 
not sin, Again : 44 If they sin against thee, for there is no 
man that sinneth not," 1 Kings 8 : 46. The truth is, my 
friends, no man is entirely saved from sin in this life ; that 
were an impossibility. True, the scriptures sometimes speak 
of being 44 saved from sin," "without sin," 44 free from sin," 
&c, in this life ; but such expressions must be understood in 
a comparative sense. No man, I care not how good he was, 
ever lived in the flesh who was entirely free, or saved from 
sin ? while in the flesh. All are subject— are liable to sin. — 
Hear Paul, in speaking of himself : 44 Now then it is no more 
1 that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me ; for I know that in 
me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing ; for to wili 
I is present with me, but how to perform that which is good 
I find not," Rom. 7: 18, 19. What mean all those com- 
mandments of the Savior and the apostles— 44 if a brother sin, 
forgive him," yea to "seventy times seven V — -and those re- 
peated exhortation to the christians — to the saved— to sin 
not, to avoid sin, &c. ? Do they not imply that the best 
were not entirely free from sin 1 — that they were not, and 
could not be, entirely and completely 44 saved from sin" in 
this mortal life ? Most assuredly. No man, I repeat, can be 
fully and completely saved from sin in this world— there is no 
such thing, in the strict sense of the phrase, as being saved 
from sin in this life. And how could there be ? 44 How 
then can man be justified with God 1 or how can he'be clean 
that is born of a woman ? Behold even to the moon, and it 
shlneth not ; yea the stars are not pure in his sight ; How 
much less man, that is a worm, and the son of man, which 
is a worm ?" — Job, 



206 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



Now if Mr. Franklin does not believe that in the future 
world men will be perfectly pure, holy, and sinless, then he 
does not believe in such a thing as a complete salvation from 
sin ! for it is abundantly evident that such a salvation cannot 
exist here ; and if not in the future state, then it will not ex- 
ist any where ! But he does believe that the righteous will, 
in the future world, be holy and sinless — consequently, sav- 
ed from sin ; and, as I said before, all the difference between 
us is, that he believes only a part of mankind, the "right- 
eous, " will be thus "saved, " while I believe all will be ;— 
for* as he himself says, "there will be no sin there, " conse- 
quently they must be safe from it, and if safe from it, then 
saved from it. 

But let us apply the gentleman's mode of reasoning to his 
own doctrine, and see how it goes. According to his doc= 
trine, nobody is saved from hell in this world, for there is no 
hell in this world to be saved from. His hell is all in the 
future world. But there is nobody saved from hell in the 
future world ; for the righteous were never in danger of hell 
in the future world, and the wicked are not saved from it, 
for they have to suffer it ! So the righteous are not saved 
from hell, for they never were in danger of it ; consequently, 
nobody is saved from hell, neither in this world nor in the 
next. 

But to return. The gentleman believes that men will be 
rewarded in the next world, for their good deeds in this world. 
Now may they not be saved in the next world, from their 
bad deeds in this world ? May they not be saved in that 
world from the nature and disposition to sin— and conse- 
quently from sin—which they had in this world ? The dif- 
ficulty between xhe gentleman and myself seems to be, not 
in regard to the fact, but in regard to the use of terms to ex- 
press that fact. He thinks it is not proper to call the glori- 
fied state of mankind in the future world' a "salvation from 
sin,'* because there is no sin in that world to be saved from ! 
While I maintain that it is proper so to speak, holding that 
they are saved in that world from the sins of this world— 
and consequently I call it a "salvation from sin/* as well as 
from all the other evils of this Hie, To illustrate : Suppose 
in a certain city there is a malignant disease— say the chol- 
era, and that it bids lair to destroy the whole population. — « 



tTNIVERSAt SALVATION. 



20? 



Say that every inhabitant has become more or less infected 
by the poisoned atmosphere. Say now that at this, juncture 
of affairs, the inhabitants are conveyed from the pestilential 
city into a healthy district of country, where there is no 
cholera — would they not be saved from the cholera, although 
there is no cholera in the country where they now are, to be 
saved from ? So it is in regard to the future world. Here, 
man is in a country of sin, misery, and death; — but in that 
country — that " building of God, eternal in the heavens "— 
whither all are tending, he will be saved from all these ca= 
lamities, for there is no sin there, nor death, nor any thing 
that can hurt or make afraid. Thus will all mankind be 
saved in the world to come—saved from mortality, and the 
sleep of death, and all the evils incident to mortality into a 
world where none of these evils exist. The thing saved 
from is here, in this world; while the saved are in that 
world, I hope the gentleman understands me now ! Just 
as he will have a part of mankind saved, so will I have all 
mankind saved. We have seen that none are saved from 
sin, in the strict and full sense, in this life ; all are subject to 
sin so long as they live in the flesh ;— and if men cannot be 
saved from sin, in the future world, because there is no sin 
there to be saved from, then none will ever be saved from 
sin, But if a part can thus be saved, then all can. But af- 
ter all, what is the difference whether it be proper to say they 
will be "saved from sin" in the future world, or not 1 All 
will be holy and happy, and this is all=snfneient, 

I have shown— I must be allowed to say, triumphantly 
shown— that all who die in Adam will be made alive in Christ, 
immortal, glorious and heavenly;— that all shall be delivered 
from the bondage of corruption, from mortality, into the glo- 
rious liberty of the. children of God .-—that all, both in 
heaven and on earth, shall be gathered together in Christ 
( the gentleman may say ly Christ if he wishes) ; and that ah 
shall eventually say, Blessing and honor, and glory and 
power be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the 
Lamb, forever and ever ! But 1 must attend to some more of 
the gentleman's arguments. 

And first : "He that is dead is freed from sin." Romans 
6; 7. This, Mr. P. says, does not mean literal death, I 
have proved that no man is "free from sin" in this life \ even 



f5S 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION", 



Paul, who is the author of this language, as we have seen , 
declares, in the very next chapter, that sin dwelt in him, that 
is, in his flesh. And if Paul, and John, and the best men 
that ever lived, were not "free from sin," how can it be said 
that men in this life are free from sin 1 Mr. Franklin thinks 
it means a figurative death, and says that "the Roman breth- 
ren^ with ithe apostle himself, were dead, in the sense of the 
passage." This I deny, without any disrespect at all to the 
gentleman. In the preceding verses Paul tells his brethren 
that they had been "planted together in the likeness of his 
(Christ's, literal) death," that they had been " buried with 
him by baptism intodeath" — that is, in the likeness or imita- 
tion of death ; and then draws the inference that as they Had 
emblematically died and been buried with Christ, therefore, 
"as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the 
Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."— 
Let it be distinctly noted that the apostle's object is to show 
them that as they have professed to be dead and buried with 
Christ, they ought, also, henceforth, to live without sin. And 
why? Now, notice the argument. The apostle refers to a 
fact — to an admitted fact — which they could not deny, and 
which bore directly on the point, lecause, "he that is dead 
(literally) is freed from sin." Now, to say that this means a 
figurative death — such as "the Roman brethren and the apos= 
uV had died, is to make Paul rest his whole argument to 
prove a certain fact, upon the bare assertion of that fact !— 
Paul was not wont to do so. Besides, it makes him declare 
a falsehood ! The fact that he tries to convince his brethren 
that they ought to live free from sin, shows that they were not 
free from sin ; how, then, could he assert that they were free 
from sin? But if the text means a figurative death, he did 
assert this-— for he emphatically declares — "he that is dead 
is freed from sin." Such a view, therefore, would not only 
destroy the apostle's argument and place him in the awkward 
predicament frequently occupied by my opponent here— of 
proving his position by a bare assertion ; but it would make 
him assert that which his argument shows was not true!— 
But the following verses show that the apostle was speaking 
of a literal death, as well as of a figurative death, and was 
endeavoring to show the consequences which ought to follow 
the one, from those which in reality do follow the other. la 



L'N IVES, SAL SALVATION. 



509 



the tenth verse he refers again to Christ's literal death : ^Fdr 
in that he died, he died unto sin once 9 '— and then adds, in 
the next verse—*-** Likewise, RECKON ye also yourselves to 
be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God/ 5 &c. So they 
were not really dead unto sin, but they were to reckon them- 
selves to be so ! And why so I Because, he that is literally 
dead is freed from sin; therefore, as they were emblematic- 
ally dead and buried, they should reckon themselve, also 
"free from sin," or dead unto sin, This, I maintain, is the 
apostle's argument ; take away the literal fact which he de- 
clares here, and you take away all the force of his argument 
— it has no power nor meaning whatever, He that is dead is 
freed from sin. This not only goes to establish the fact that no 
one in this life is free from sin, but it is another strong pre= 
sumptive argument, at least, in favor of the final holiness and 
happiness of our race, There is no sin beyond death ; and 
hence we conclude there will be no punishment where there 
is no sin. 

As to what I said in my last on Matthew and Luke, in re- 
gard to the resurrection, I have only to remark that, in view 
of what the gentleman has said in reply, I see no necessity 
for anything further from me. You all recollect what I then 
said. The gentleman must yield the point, or as I said 
then, take the ground that these evangelists contradict each 
other. This he is not willing to do. He must, therefore y ad= 
mit that in the resurrection all will be as the angels of God 
in heaven. 

Mr. Franklin cannot see how Romans 5 "proves that all 
mankind will be dually holy and happy." If he had refuted 
my argument on the 19th verse of this chapter, he might 
have shown why it doos not teach that doctrine. I have re- 
peatedly called his attention to this verse ; but he has, every 
time, forgotten it ! You can probably guess the cause of his 
forget'ulness ! The apostle, in summing up his argument, 
adds, in this verse : "For as by one man's disobedience, 
many were made sinners ; so by the obedience of one shall 
many be made righteous." Now, the word many is just as 
extensive in the one case as in the other ; just as many as 
have been made sinners by Adam shall be made rightous by 
Christ: and the original word here rendered many shows 
that h mav as properly mean every son and daughter of 
14 



210 



T HE LOGIC A L 1 »1SC U SS1UN . 



Adam, as any part of them, for it literally signifies the. multi - 
tude or the mass. 

I maintain, as well as other Universalists, that this verse is 
parallel with the 22d 1 Corinthians 15— notwithstanding Mi\ 
F. says. I have given up the passage as not applying to the 
resurrection. Perhaps the gentleman will understand this 
matter better when 1 tell him that in Romans 5 ; the subject is 
not the resurrection. In 1 Corinthians 15, the main idea is a 
physical one — the resurrection, while the moral effects and 
consequences come in as secondary. In Romans 5, the 
main idea is a moral one — the righteousness oi all man- 
kind, or all who have been made sinners by the disobedience 
of Adam. The chapters, and especially the two verses 
named, are parallel to each other, in regard to numbers, and 
in reference to Adam and Christ. The one declaring that 
all who die in Adam shall be made a lice in Christ: the other 
that all who have been made sinners by Adam shall be made 
righteous by Christ. The one is a physical resurrection in- 
cluding the moral ; the other is a moral resurrection includ- 
ing the physical. The gentleman will now see whv 1 s ! ad- 
mitted" that Romans 5 taught a moral resurrection. And 
now, as he has paid no attention to this 19th verse, so far, 1 
presume that he will not ; for he will hardly do so in his last 
speech, as I would then not have a chance to reply, should it 
be -necessary. But should he do so in his next speech, you 
will please bear in mind that as many as have been made 
sinners by Adam shall be made righteous by Christ ; and 
whether this means "conversion" or not, or whether it is to 
be done at the resurrection or before it, is a matter of no com 
sequence, so that the fact takes place. The apostle has de- 
clared that it shall be done, and this is enough for us to know. 

I told you that Mr. Franklin would not tell you what the 
word "creature" means, in Rom. 8 ! Of course he will not 
do so in his last speech^ for then I could not have "an oppor- 
tunity to make a string of objections," and thus have some= 
thing to say! Well, 1 will not press the gentleman any fur- 
ther on this point; and as I think I said enough on this sub- 
ject in my last, I will let it pass with the remark that it will 
take more ingenuity and skill in twisting the Scriptures than 
my friend possesses, or more than he is willing to display, in 
order to make this passage teach any thing less than the final 



UNIVERSAL SALVATION. 



211 



deliverance of the whole human family "from the bondage of 
corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God!" 
I submit the passage as a triumphant argument in favor of 
this most glorious result. 

Mr. Franklin says that he has "proved most clearly and 
triumphantly, while on his first proposition, that all men will 
go to God, and that to be judged," and that I have said "no- 
thing deserving the name of an offset to his argument!" 1 
am aware that he tried to prove that Christ would, at some 
future time, ••come" to judge "all men," but this is the first I 
have heard of the proposition that "all men" are to "go to God" 
to be judged ! 1 hope i shall be excused for not making an 
"offset" to this "argument," for it is sometimes extremely 
difficult to reply to an argument before one hears it ! The 
gentleman, it seems, has abandoned the ground that Christ is 
yet to come to judge the world. ••Belter late than never!" — 
He now thinks that "the world" will "go to God to be judged." 
Well, the text says, "For of him, and through and to him, 
are all things." It as distinctly teaches that all came from 
God, as it does that all will go to God ; now if all were with 
God in the first place, "to be judged," then the probability is 
that all will go back to him again, "to be judged" — otherwise 
1 must be allowed to think the text fails to prove the gentle- 
man's proposition. So also of the "spirit" which shall return 
to God who gave it." If it was there in- fee first place "to be 
judged," then, for aught we know, it may go back again "to 
be judged." 

On the text, " I will draw all men unto me," the gentle- 
man thinks "there is a slight difference between drawing to 
him and coming to him." I confess I can see none ! i 
showed in my last that all who came to Christ previous to his 
crucifixion were drawn by the Father — "no man cometh to 
me except the Father draw him." But after Christ was cru- 
cified, "lifted up from the earth," then he was to draw men 
unto him, and not only men, but all men. That some men 
are drawn to Christ, or come to him in this life, is no reason 
that all must be drawn to him in this life, or not come to him 
at all ! We believe that Christ will not give up his Mediatori- 
al reign until he has drawn all men unto him ; and the only 
difference between us and Mr. Franklin is — he believes all 
men will be drawn to Christ to be judged, while we believe al 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION, 



will be drawn to him to be saved or made righteous. — 
This is the difference, my friends, and you are at liberty to 
take which side you please. 

The gentleman says he dorrt admit that "all things in Christ'' 
includes those things not in Christ ! Neither do h But he 
should bear in mind that when "all things" are orce gathered 
together in Christ, there will be no "things" out of him. He 
says my "position is that in Christ here, arid in 1st Cor. 15: 
£2, is, in a justified slate.-' He then says, "the passage 
simply asserts the gathering together of all things in a justified 
state," and therefore does nothing for me ! My friends, 1 can- 
hardly iind words to express my contempt for the course Mr . 
Franklin pursues in regard to this matter. 1 accused him in 
my last of wilfully misrepresenting me, aad I made the mat- 
ter so plain that there was no possible excuse for him to do 
so any longer. He whines about what 1 said a little, sats k 
is --all understood in this community," and still persists in 
the same disgraceful course! 1 have said, over and over 
again, that to be in Christ, was to be in a "justified condition." 
and that when all shall be "made alive ,? in him, and "gath- 
ered together" in him, then all would be in a justified -con- 
dit ion. 

He continues to assume, and take it for granted, as though 
nothing had been said to the contrary, that I simply mean 
(as he most foolisMy believes) that none will ever be made 
alive in Christ, nor gathered together in him, but such' as are 
justified in this life ! He takes this, 1 say, all for granted, 
when I have told him that I believed no such thing, advoca- 
ted no such thing ; and exposed his stupidity and hardihood 
in such a manner that there was no possible chance for him 
to continue his misrepresentations any longer without doing 
k knowingly and designedly! I told him in my last to stop 
it— that I would endure it no longer. He has done so again, 
in his sneaking, underhanded manner, thinking, no doubt, 
that the audience would not detect it ! 1 hold him guilty, 
therefore, of that which is equal to willful falsification ! 
You may think, my friends, that this is severe language. 
But it is no more than he deserves ; I cautioned him before, 
so that ho knew better. He is not so stupid as he pretends 
to be. I allow any man to ridicule my arguments as much 
as he pleases ; but to assume that an argument of mine is di- 



UNIVERSAL SALVATION. 



213 



rectly the opposite of what it is, and to do it knowingly, wil- 
fully, and therefore wickedly, and then to ridicule that posi- 
tion, is what I will not allow. No man shall thus trifle with 
me, and go unwhipped of justice ! I believe in rewarding 
men according to their deeds. The gentleman will proba- 
bly tell you again that I am in a bad humor — that T am angry ; 
but even if I were angry, it would not justify him in sinning ! 
But I am only in earnest. I told him before that I was in 
earnest ; and he seemed to think I ought to have given this 
information sooner. I gave it in time for his last speech, but 
it didn't seem to do any good. 

I will now repeat my argument : { admitted in the first 
place, that to be in Christ meant to be in a justified state— 
and then maintained that all will eventually be in Christ .for 
all are to be made alive in him (1 Cor. 15: 22,) and all 
things in heaven and on earth are to be gathered together in 
hi?n, (Eph. 1 : 9) which I hold to mean all intelligent crea- 
tures. Therefore, as all are to be made alive in Christy and 
all gathered together in him, the conclusion is that all will 
eventually be brought into a justified state or condition. 
Now let him misrepresent me again, if he wishes ; let him 
say that I only mean that those which are now in Christ will 
be made alive in him — will be gathered together in him ! or 
that none but those that are in a justified condition in this 
life will ever be in a justified condition in the future life, by 
being made alive, or gathered together in Christ ! Let him 
so misrepresent me again, if he dares, and if this congrega- 
tion don't frown him out of countenance, it will be because 
he has no shame left! He talk about having a religion that 
won't allow him to get angry— that won't id low him to talk 
as 1 do ! Religion, indeed ! What kind of a religion is that 
which allows a man to do that which is far worse than xo get 
angry 1— which allows him to persist in misrepresenting me, 
when he knows better? Paul says, 4s Be angry and sin not/ 7 
but Mr, Franklin can sin even without being angry ! But I 
must pass on. The gentleman, I hope, will begin to think I 
am in earnest, by this time ! 

It matters not what or who the devil is— he is to be de- 
stroyed before the resurrection -. All other enemies must be 
destroyed before the last, which is death, and death will be 
destroyed Tfhen all mankind shall be raised from the dead, 



214 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



Death destroys sin, and the probability is that it destroys the 
devil also, or devils, if there bu more than one. The gen- 
tleman admits that the " hope of the gospel destroys the fear 
of death in the christian man, in this life," but he " can'tsee 
how that can prove that all mankind will be finally holy 
and happy." It is because " the christian man " knows that 
death, which is the last enemy, is to be destroyed by a gene- 
ral resurrection ; and as all mankind are to be raised from 
the dead, and as the last enemy will then be destroyed, and 
as all mankind are to be raised in Christ, in the image of 
the heavenly, immortal and glorious, " the christian man " 
can come to no other just conclusion than that all will be 
< i holy and happy." 

There are undoubtedly "sorer punishments than death 
without mercy," in this world; but we have no account of 
any punishment or "enemy" in the Bible, after the "last en- 
emy," which is death. And as this is to be "destroyed" at 
the resurrection of the dead, there can be no "enemy" be- 
yond the resurrection. Consequently the gentleman's hell is 
a humbug! 

But the gentleman's position in regard to Rev. 5: 13, is the 
most awkward and ridiculous of any thing yet ! lie thinks 
because John immediately goes back to the commencement 
of the gospel dispensation, and describes things that took 
place on the earth, that therefore what he previously saw 
must have taken place on the earth also ! He seems to 
think every thing that John saw, must of necessity take 
place in the same regular succession, in regard to time, as 
that in which they are described in the book — than which 
nothing could be more unwarrantable, or farther from the 
truth ! John saw the final triumph of the Redeemer's reign 
—the "restitution of all things," when all shall be redeemed, 
purified, and shall ascribe glory and honor and power unto 
him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb forever. 
He saw the end. But he was not to continue gazing upon this 
glorious scene, however delightful, nor was he to look be- 
yond. He is then carried back to the commencement of 
Christ's reign. The 6th chapter opens therefore with the 
opening of the first seal, and closes with the opening of the 
sixth seal- — all of which pertains to the destruction of Jeru- 
salem, and the disastrous times which immediately preceded 
it. 



UNIVERSAL SALVATION; 



215 



But Mr. F. says that Rev. 5: 13, "refers to the judgment 
seat of Christ, where every tongue shall confess." He ad- 
mits then by this, that this verse means "the whole human 
family," for he believes that all are to be assembled before 
the "judgment seat of Christ." And "every tongue shall 
confess" — that is, shall say, "Blessing and honor and glory 
and power be unt© him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto 
the Lamb forever." And is this the kind of a "judgment" 
that Mr. F. believes in ? All are to praise God and the 
Lamb — to shout blessing and honor and glory and power be 
unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.— 
Surely^ then, I have not so much objection to the judgment, 
after all! "Be it known then, and read of all men, that the 
oft-repeated" judgment for which Mr. Franklin contends, and 
at which all are to "confess," only means that all — both 
which are in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, 
and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them- — are to 
say, "Blessing and honor and glory and power be unto him 
that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb forever and 
ever !" I want no better Universalism than this. All, then, 
that are to be assembled before the "judgment seat of Christ" 
are thus to praise God and the Lamb — angels and men, all 
praise him alike, in the same glorious strain. The gentle- 
man, in his over anxiety and his determination to make ev- 
ery thing apply to "the judgment," has at length blundered 
very near to the truth. 1 never saw such a stickler for "judg- 
ment" in my life 1 When it is said, "the spirit returns to 
God who gave it," says Mr. F., "it is to be judged !" When 
Christ says he "will draw all men unto him," Mr. F. thinks 
it will be for the purpose of "judging them!" And now, 
when the Revelator saw in prophetic vision all intelligences* 
both in heaven and on earth — yea, all in the universe — around 
the throne, praising God and the Lamb, why, says he— true 
to his one idea — "John saw the judgment !" Every tiling 
means the judgment ! How ridiculous ! i 

How the gentleman will get along with his idea that what 
I oh n describes after he describes this "judgment," must take 
place after the judgment, is more than I can tell ! Accord- 
ing to this, every thing recorded in the book of Revelation 
after chapter 5: 13, must take place after the judgment! — * 
This is unquestionably more than the gentleman will allow 5 



m 



THEOLOGICAL D2S*USStON. 



and I therefore conclude that he will abandon that idea. — 
Let it be remembered then that at this "judgment" which 
John saw, all were praising God. Not a part praising him, 
and the balance lamenting ; but all—every creature in hea- 
ven and on earth — all that shall be assembled at the " judg- 
ment seat" shall praise God — consequently, all will be happy. 
I hope the gentleman will not try to bock out from his ap- 
plication of the text. I shall hold him to it. But as I have 
but a few minutes left, I must attend to the gentleman's coun- 
ter proof-texts. 

The first is the "sin against the Holy Ghost. " On this 
subject I will simply give you what Dr. Clarke says, believ- 
ing his view is correct. 

" Though I follow the common translation, yet I am fully 
satisfied that the meaning of the words is, neither in this dis- 
pensation, viz., the Jewish ; or, in the dispensation to come, 
viz., the Christian, Olam ha-bo, the world to come, is a 
constant phrase for the times of the Messiah, in the Jew- 
ish writers. The sin here spoken of by our Lord, ranks 
high in the catalogue of presumptuous sins, for which there 
was no forgiveness under the Mosaic dispensation. See 
Num. xv. 30, 31— xxxv. 31— Lev. xx. 10—1 Sam. ii. 25. 
When our Lord says that such a sin hath no forgiveness, is 
he not to be understood as meaning that the crime shall be 
punished under the Christian dispensation as it was under 
the Jewish, viz. by the destruction of the body I And is not 
this the same mentioned 1 John i. 7, called the sin unto 
death, i. e. a sin that was to be punished by the death of the 
body, while mercy might be extended to the soul 1 The 
punishment for presumptuous sins, under the Jewish law, to 
which our Lord evidently alluded, certainly did not extend 
to the damnation of the soul, though the body was destroy- 
ed ; therefore I think that though there was no such forgive- 
ness to be extended to this crime as to absolve the man from 
the punishment of temporary death, yet, on repentance, mer- 
cy might be extended to the soul ; and every sin may be 
repented of under the gospel dispensation." — Cam. in Matt. 
12: 31,32. 

In regard to the phrase, "hath never forgiveness/' on which 
Mr. Franklin lays such stress, Dr. Clarke doubts its genu- 
ineness* He says— "Never*— eis tonaiona. This is wanting 
in the Codex Bezce, two others, five of the Italia, and in 



universe t salvation. 



217 



Mjuahatexis, and Cyprian" With regard to the phrase 
••eternal damnation,*' I expect to prove, when the third pro- 
position comes before us, that the word eternal does not sig- 
nify endless duration, and shaii therefore omit all proof now 
on that subject. Every Bible reader we'll knows that men 
can suffer on earth what the Bible terms "dam nation.*' "He 
that doubteth is damned,** "having damnation because they 
cast off their first faith,** are Bible expressions. So this text 
is disposed of. 

He next read Matt. 16 i 26 — " For what is a man profited 
if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? — 
Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul ?*' On 
this text I will also let you hear Dr. Clarke. He says : 
" Lose his own soul — or lose his life. On what authority 
many have translated the word psuche in the 25th verse, life, 
and in this verse souL \ know not ; but am certain it means 
life in both places. If a man should gain the whole world, 
its riches, honors, and pleasures, and lose his life, what 
would all these profit him, seeing they can only be enjoyed 
during life V So there is nothing said in this passage but 
what a Universalist might say every day — " What would it 
profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his own life?"' 

The other passage is Luke 12:4, 5. " Be not afraid of 
them that kill the body, and after that have no more that 
ihey can do; but I will forewarn you whom you shall 
fear: Fear him which after he hath killed, hath power to 
cast into hell : yea, I say unto you, fear him.'* 

It is very strange that the gentleman should speak so con- 
fidently of this passage — as though it proved any thing to 
the point ! Admit it to mean just what he .thinks it does, it 
falls very far short of proving any thing in opposition to the 
final holiness and happiness of all mankind. Suppose that 
gehennci means an endless hell, and that psuche means the 
soul, or the immortal part — both of which I deny — and what 
does the passage prove ? It declares that God has the power 
to east into hell. And who denies this ? God has power to 
do any thing that can be done by almighty power. But does 
the text say that he will do it ? Not a word of it. Said the 
Savior, " God is able of these stones to raise up children un- 
to Abraham " — but did he do it 1 We admit that God has 
power to cast the soul and body into hell - or anywhere else ; 



THEOLOGICAL DTSCUSSION 



but the text does not say that he ever did, or ever will, do it. 
So that admitting the gentleman's own interpretation of the 
passage, it does not prove any thing for him, either one way 
or the other ! In Matthew, the parallel passage reads : "but 
rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body 
in hell." Now if the text proves any thing for the gentle- 
man, it proves that both soul and body will be destroyed — 
not punished, but destroyed. It proves as clearly the des- 
truction of the soul as it does that of the body — that is, ad- 
mitting the common interpretation of the passage. This 
would prove annihilation ! But notice that in neither case 
does it say that God will do thus, but only that he has pow- 
er, that he is able ; which nobody disputes. So the gentle- 
man has, in this case, made a complete failure ! 

I believe that I am now through. I will not trespass further 
upon your time. I submit the argument. Mr. Franklin has 
the closing speech ; and, as the saying is, he will probably 
" spread himself," as he knows that I will have no chance 
to reply. However, I have no fears of the consequence. 
Whatever he may say, I feel confident my arguments must 
stand, as they have so far, triumphant evidences in favor of 
the ultimate happiness of all mankind. I have shown from 
the word of God that "all shall be made alive in Christ" — 
"gathered together in him" — "shall be as the angels of God 
in heaven" — shall be "freed from sin" — that "sin," the "de- 
vil," and finally "death," the "last enemy," shall be destroy- 
ed ; that all shall be "delivered from the bondage of cor- 
ruption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God ;" — 
and finally, that all intelligencies shall say, "Blessing, and 
honor, and gtory^and power, be unto Him that sitteth upon 
the throne, and unto the Lamb forever, 5 " Amen and Amen ! 



UNIVEKSA L SA LVA TION. 



219 



MR. FRANKLIN'S FIFTH SPEECH. 



Beloved Hearers : 

My friend, Mr. Manford, seems in deep trouble to know 
how to manage his old sinking ship. The concern has 
sprung so many new leaks, in addition to the old ones, that 
he is in as difficult a situation as the man of whom I have 
heard somewhere, who was told by a wag that he could draw 
good wine out of one end of a barrel of brandy and beer out 
of the other. After getting the liberty to make the experi- 
ment, the wag tapped one end of the barrel, and after draw- 
ing out a bottle full, told the man to hold his finger on the 
place he had opened till he had drawn some out of the other 
end. After drawing from the other end likewise, he directed 
the man to reach his other hand over and stop it from running 
out till he would make some corks to stop it. When this was 
done, the wag took his bottles and started off, leaving the man 
holding the barrel with both ends open. So it is with Mr. M .; 
he has been trying to stop the ends made in his system, un- 
til he has even put patch upon patch in mending, until he 
scarcely knows what he has been trying to do. And, in or- 
der to give vent to his feelings of mortification and disappoint* 
ment, in coming fifty miles to have his peculiar scheme rid- 
dled from end to end and put to an open shame, he complains 
of my "boasting" But it was not my boasting that troubled 
him ; but my taking his argument out of his hands, and ex- 
posing his ridiculous positions and interpretations was the 
real trouble all the time. I understand the gentleman. 
" Boasting," indeed ! What would he care for boasting if no 
other difficulty were in the way I He would care no more 
than I care for his rantings. But I can tell you what makes 
my "boasting," as he calls it, wound his feelings so. He 
knows that I have clearly shown to this intelligent communi- 
ty, his utter failure ; and he dreads for me to mention it, as 
all the people are so sensible that it is so. But I care noth- 
ing for his boasting, for I have too much confidence in the in- 
telligence of the community in which I live, to think they can 



THEO lOGi C A L DISCUSSION . 



be made to believe his unreasonable and unscriptural contra- 
dictions. I rely upon reason and scripture, and therefore, 
feel not the least excited by anything he can say. But in 
his politeness and benevolence, he attributes all my boasting 
to my "fool-hardiness or ignorance.'' That is exactly the 
language o£ men who fail in argument. They make up the 
deficiency in their arguments by bitter and abusive language. 
1 dare not, and wish not to say, "thou fool," for should I, be- 
lieving the bible, as I do, I should consider myself "in dan- 
ger of hell-fire." He who believe* there is no hell may thus 
talk : I may not. 

He still feels it incumbent upon him to make some addi- 
tional efforts, or rather to make one of the same efforts over 
again, to escape from the dilemma into which he fell, relative 
10 saving men from their sins in a world where there will be 
no sin. But, on this point lie is bound hand and foot, and 1 
defy him or any other man to escape the difficulty he appears 
so conscious he is involved in, on this point. He denies that 
there will be any sin in the world to come. Yet he contends 
for a salvation of all men in the coming world, not, he says, 
in their sins, but "from their sins." Well, of course, they 
are in their sins, till they are saved from them. They are 
saved from them, he says, in the coming world. Well, then,, 
they must go into that world in their sins ! From this there 
is no escape. But he kindly informs you that I believe that 
some are saved from sin in the coming world. 1 deny the 
charge ; and can assure you that I believe in no such thing. 
The righteous are saved from their sins or pardoned in this 
world, and consequently saved from punishment in the world 
to come ; hence, they are saved from sin in a world where 
there is sin. and will be saved from punishment in a world 
where there will be punishment to be saved from. In this 
there is some reason, but there is not one particle of reason 
in talking of being saved from sin in a world where there will 
be no sin. After all his talk, then, and preaching about sal- 
vation* he really believes in no salvation, or what is the same 
thing, a salvation from nothing in time m eternity. With 
him, men must sin as long as they stay in this world, and con- 
sequently be punished the same length of time, and* in the 
world to come there will be no sis, second death, hell, or any 
panishment cf any kind to be saved from, so that hy& system 



jns&rm s a l s al v at ion . 



221 



is now completely out, and he does not believe in any salva- 
h on from anything, in time or eternity: 

He says if I will toll you upon what principle a part will 
be saved, he will tell you upon what principle all will he 
saved, Well, we will see. I believe that some will be gav- 
el from sin in this life upon the principle of believing, re- 
penting, and obeying the gospel, and that by continuing 
faithful in obedience to God till death, they will be saved 
from punishment in the world to come. Can he show that 
all will be saved upon the same principle f 

I am pleased to see how conscious my friend appears to 
be of his failure on the words **in Christ/' With him a word 
is a word, and it appears it can have but one meanings 
Hence he has gone on to multiply passages where the Greek 
preposition en is, and should be, translated in. But what 
bearing has all that on the subject, unless he intends to im- 
pose the idea on this audience that the Greek word en inva- 
riably means one thing 1 Not the least in the world. But 
he was ashamed to let it pass without admitting that this same 
preposition e n is frequently translated by \ yet he pronounc- 
ed it rather faintly. 

All he said relative to my giving up all we have contended 
for concerning the use of that word connected with baptism? 
is just worthy of a man who regards his reputation as a critic 
and a man of learning before the literary world, no more 
than he does himself, A man who is willing to palm off 
such an imposition on the uneducated, is not to be envied ; 
and I have no fears of such an attempt having any effect on 
any honest man, who is acquainted even with the first prim 
eiples of language. 

1 have already abundantly shown, as many in this assem- 
bly well know, and even as the gentleman has admitted, that 
this same Greek preposition en is sometimes translated by as 
well as in j and that it is translated in several ways. We all 
know that it would make great nonsense to translate it inva= 
riably />>/, and not any more so than it would to translate it in- 
variably in. When it means agency it should be translated 
by or through, but when it means place it should be translated 
in. Well, even wit h Mr. Man ford's consciousness of pro- 
propriety, he has been enabled to discover the impropriety 
of saying 44 in Christ " is the place where men are made 



222 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



alive, and even became enraged at me for intimating that 
such is his view of the passage. When he yielded up the 
point, and admitted that it did not mean place, the argument 
was virtually given up. 

When the scripture says, " as in Adam all die," the idea 
is precisely the same as " by one man sin entered into the 
world, and death by sin." It is certainly expressing the 
meaning of the sacred writer more clearlyto say " by one 
man sin entered into the world, and death by sin," than 4 'in 
one man sin entered into the world." " By one man's of- 
fence" is certainly better sense, and expresses the apostle's 
meaning more clearly than "in one man's offence." " By 
Adam all die," is abetter translation than k, in Adam all die." 
" By Christ shall all be made alive," is a belter translation 
than "in Christ all shall be made alive. " 

But to accommodate the gentleman, and to try to please 
him, 1 have agreed to let him have his own way, as far as 
as our argument is concerned, and to let it stand that "in 
Christ" in 1 Cor. 15 : 22, is the same as "if any man be in 
Christ, he is a new creature," and the same as "so many of 
us as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ." 
Or, as he expresses it, they "are in a justified state." 1 then 
showed him, that if this be correct, the passage simply as- 
serts the resurrection of those in a justified state, or those 
"baptized into Christ." To make this doubly strong, he has 
asserted that "none will be made alive out of Christ." In 
all this we have just taken him at his word, and consequently 
the passage simply asserts "in Christ all shall be made alive," 
and "in Christ," he says, is "the justified," which makes 
the passage assert that "the justified all shall be made alive ;" 
and as those "in Christ" mean the justified, those out of 
Christ are those not justified. These, according to his doc= 
trine, will never be raised. 

The fifteenth of 1 Cor. then, is fully and fairly taken out 
of his hands, and even made to testify against him. Taking 
him at his own word, and admitting his own interpretation, 
he has simply proved that all the justified will be made alive ; 
and according to this explanation, which he appears so deter- 
mined to have, there is not one word in the whole chapter, 
about the resurrection or salvation of any but the righteous. 
According to him, "in Adam," that is, in the Adamic slate, 



UNIVERSAL SALVATION. 



223 



or the fleshly state, "all die," even so, "in Christ," or in a 
justified state, or those "baptized into Christ," "all shall 
be made alive !" I see nothing like all mankind being holy 
and happy in this. But I must not press him too hard here, 
for he "will not suffer it any longer !" 

On Romans, 6:7, the gentleman has given us a brilliant 
display truly! He said, with an air of triumph, "I have 
proved that no man is free from sin in this life." Well, ail 
1 have to say about this is, if he has proved such to be the 
fact, he has proved that Paul did not teli the truth. Paul said 
in this same sixth chapter of Romans, "ye have obeyed from 
the heart, that form of doctrine delivered you. Being 
then made free from sin, ye became the servants of right- 
eousness." Will we believe Mr. Manford, who says he 4 4 has 
proved that no man is free from sin in this life," or 
Paul, who said of the disciples at Rome, "being then made 
free from sin, ve became the servants cf righteousness?" — 
Rom. 6: 17, 18. 

1 suppose the gentleman fell into this error in looking 
at the fruits of his own doctrine, which 1 presume, never did 
free any man from sin in this life, or that which is to come. 
But as the gentleman quoted from John, 1 also appeal 
to John. He says, "He that commiteth sin, is of the devil." 
1 John, 8: 8. Mr. M. says all commit sin ; all are then of 
the devil. John says, "Whosoever is born of God, doth not 
commit sin."—! John, 3: 9. Mr. M. says, all commit 
sin. The gentleman does not believe his Bible, is the true 
secret of the matter. But he is determined to prove that 
Paul was a sinner, even while he was an apostle of Christ! 
But let us hear the apostle a little before we decide against 
him. He says, "What shall we say then ? Shall we con- 
tinue in sin that grace may abound I God forbid. How 
shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein We 
cannot tell how, but it is so, is clearly shown by the immuta- 
ble assertion of Mr. M. who says he has proved that 
"no man is saved from sin, in this life." You may talk, 
Paul, about man being "justified, sanctified, adopted and 
saved," and about "Saints," "holy brethren, partakers of the 
heavenly calling," &c. &c, and Peter may talk about 
the "elect according to the foreknowledge of God, through 
sanctification of spirit and obedience of the truth," &c. &c, 



THEOLOGICAL -DISCUSSION. 



but it is all m vain, for Mr, Manford has now decided 
the case, and even proved it, he says, that "no man 12 
free from sin in this lite f" There is no difference between 
those who serve God, and those who serve Him not, at this rats 
What a work of benevolence it must be, to spread such sen- 
timents through the land ! What desperation a man must be 
driven to, when his success depends on proving that the holy 
apostle of Christ was a sinner. His reference to the Old 
Testament on this point, avails nothing. We are disputing 
about the gospel age- I am not willing to spend time 
m a debate, to defend charges made against even my breth- 
ren, who live contemporary with me, but 1 cannot endure it„ 
so well to hear Paul slandered by a professed minister of the. 
gospel, He has repeatedly called bim "St.. Raul/ 3 since the 
commencement of this debate ; but now Saint means sinner, 
I cannot see why he has been so exasperated at his brother 
for calling him "a little sinner,' 7 in some of his late skirmishes 
with the ** Independent Universalist," if sinner means saint, or 
even if Paul was a sinner. Is he any better than Pan if 

He will have it that "he that is dead is freed from siiy/' 
Rom. 6: 7, is literal death. While on this point, he uttered 
the following remarkable sentence : " Likewise reckon ye 
also, yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin. but alive unto 
God, &c, So they were not really dead unto sin ; but they 
were to reckon themselves to be so." If the apostle was 
guilty of directing his brethren to reckon that to be so indeed, 
which he knew was not so, he may have been guilty of the 
charge of being a sinner ; but 1 do not believe he ever told 
them to reckon any thing to be so, which was not so. 
While the apostle commanded them to reckon themselves to 
be dead indeed unto sin," he takes upon himself to say, 
"they were not really dead unto sin." If they were "dead 
indeed unto sin," they "were dead really unto sin." 

(Jol. 3: 3, we have a similar expression, meaning the 
same thing. "For ye are dead and your life is hid with 
Christ in God." This did not mean natural or literal death, 
for they were alive in this sense. It did not mean dead 
in trespass and sins, for they were made alive from that state. 
It, simply meant dead to, or separated from sin. The same is 
the case with the other passage, as the fvboie connection 
shows. 



UNIVERSAL SALVATION. 



225 



Mr. Manford must have a very defective memory truly* 
He cannot now recollect that I have said any thing on Rom. 
5: 19. If he should happen to read the debate after it 
is printed, he will find that I have already said much more 
on that verse, than he has replied to. Has he forgotten that 
he stated that he did not believe in imputed righteous- 
ness, and the difficulty that I had to get him to acknowledge 
that he believed this very passage 1 In my recapitulation. I 
will show you where he siands, on the 5th of Romans. 

The next thing I shall notice in the gentleman's last 
speech, is his mild and persuasive language, in accusing me 
of " wilful falsification!" He does not deny being angry now, 
but justifies himself by the words, "be angry, and sin not ;" 
but it is now clear that he does not believe this can be done, 
for he contends that all men sin in this life. But why is he 
so enraged ? Simply because I cannot see how the expres- 
sion "That in the dispensation of the fullness of times, 
he might gather together all things in Christ," proves that all 
will be saved. But why be so excited at me about it ? I am 
willing to let it prove, all that it will prove. But there 
are several difficulties i want removed before I start off 
arguing his doctrine from this passage. 1. I must be as= 
sured that "might gather together," means "shall gather 
together." 2, I must be satisfied that "gather together," 
means eternal saltation. 3. It must be proved to me 
that "all things in Christ," means all men, in and out 
of Christ. He has made several - attempts to satisfy me 
on some of these points, and finding it impossible to do 
it, he now falls upon me, and accuses me with being "fool- 
hardy," &c. &c. But I cannot feel angry at him, for it 
is truly mortifying to make such a failure as he has m 
the presence of so many intelligent people, and thus 
mortify the few of his friends who are present. In the 
midst of his fury on this point, he declares that I "shall not 
go unvvhipped of justice," and adds, "I believe in rewarding 
men according to their works." 1 must say again, that 
I feel exceedingly comfortable under this mighty reward he 
is trying to inflict upon me, in his effort to take vengeance 
out of the hands of God. 

Mr. Manford has plunged his whole superstructure into 
ruin, in applying the passage emoted by him from He v. 5: 13 
15 



226 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

to the resurrection state. But he is either insensible of his con- 
dition or would affect to be so? from his remarks upon that pas- 
sage. Let me call your attention to it once more. Let the 
passage relate to what ever state it may, every one must see 
that the seven seals are introduced, chapter 5, vere 1, and 
that no other subject is mentioned up to the close of the 6th 
chapter. Now put these seals in heaven or earth, in time or 
eternity, one thing is certain, and that is that they all belong 
to the same state. Let us then, follow the Revelator. Af- 
ter the introduction of the seals, verse 1, the inquiry is made, 
verse 2, " who is worthy to open the book, and loose the 
seals I " We are informed that no man in heaven, nor in 
earth, neither under the tarth, was able to open the book, 
neither to look thereon, verse 3. On account of this, John 
weeps, verse 4. One of the elders informed him that the 
Lion of the tribe of Judah, had prevailed to open the book 
and loose the seals, verse 5. The Lamb with the seven 
spirits of God is mentioned, verse 6. He took the book, 
verse 7. And when he had taken the book, the elders fall 
down and worship him, verse 8. They declare him worthy 
to open the book, and to loose the seals, verse 9. They ac* 
knowledge that he had made them kings and priests to God, 
verse 10. He now stands in readiness to open the seals, and 
John saw many angels round about the throne, verse It. — 
His worthiness to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, 
and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing, verse 12. 
A general acknowledgment, and every creature which 
is in heaven, and on the earth, and such as are in the 
sea, were now heard ascribing, blessing, and honor, and 
glory, and power, unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and 
to the Lamb. This Mr. Manford admits is in the resurrec= 
tion state. All this goes before the opening of the seals.— 
He may say it means whatever he pleases, but the opening 
®f the seals follows immediately after all this. 

Sixth chapter, verse 1, he says, 4i And I saw when the 
Lamb opened one of the seals." This followed immediately 
after the general acknowledgment, two verses before. He 
proceeds right on with the opening of the seals, the closing 
of which presents one of the most horrific scenes ever de- 
scribed in human speech. I cannot describe it in any way, 
more forcibly than by quoting the language. " And the 



UNIVERSAL SALVATION. 



227 



heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together ; and 
every mountain and island were moved out of their places; 
and the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich 
men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every 
bond man, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens, 
and in the rocks of the mountains ; and said to the moun- 
tains and rocks, fall on us, and hide us from the face of 
him that sitteth upon the throne, and from the wrath of the 
Lamb ; for the great day of his wrath is come ; and who 
shall be able to stand." 

If they were in heaven just before when the universal con- 
fession of the h©nor and glory of the Lamb was made, they 
did not stay in it but a short time, for tbey now sing a very 
different song. But Mr. M. turns round, and says that it was 
in this world. Well, then, why did he apply it to the " far 
distant future 1 " I am not to blame for it. I only take him 
-at his own application. Just as certain as the verse quoted 
by him relates to the resurrection, the other matters just quo= 
ted follow after. Here, then he has refuted his own position, 
and given up the whole concern. 

The passage he refers to, is no more evidence of the sal- 
vation of all men, than the confession made under the gal- 
lows by a criminal, is that he will not be punished for his 
crimes. It is true, he speaks in praise of the judge of the 
law, and of the government; but all this is no evidence that 
he will not be executed. In the same way, God will con- 
vince every criminal in the universe, of his justice, and of 
his goodness, as well as the glory and honor of Jesus Christ. 
The oath of the Almighty has gone forth, and he will not 
revoke it, that every tongue shall confess, and every knee 
shall bow ; but those prisoners who would not confess him 
before men, will only confess as criminals, and hastily seek 
a shelter from the face of the Lamb ; and him that sits upon 
the throne. 

1. Having now given due attention to ail the items in 
my friend's closing speech, except what will come up natu- 
rally in my recapitulation, I shall proceed briefly to review 
the argument, and place it before you in its true light. Be- 
fore defining my position, I read our proposition, viz: "Do 
the scriptures teach the final holiness and happiness of all 
mankind ? " Mr. Manford affirms — I deny. In my first 



228 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



speech I showed that no passage of scripture says that " all 
men shall be holy." Nor is there any passage which says 
that " all men shall be happy. " Much less is there any pas- 
sage which says " all men shall be finally holy and happy." 
Vet this is precisely what my friend has undertaken to prove. 
Well, it must be as clear as any proposition can be, that he 
never can sustain his proposition, unless he can find a pas- 
sage containing these terms or others of the same import.— 
This I predicted at the start he never would do. You have 
now heard him make his last effort to do it, and are prepared 
to judge how well he has succeeded. 

The first passage produced to sustain his proposition was 
Matt. 22 : 23-32, and its parallel, Luke 20. Upon examina- 
tion, it was found that the words " finally holy and happy," 
were not to be found in the passage, nor any other words of 
the same import. The question then arose, how the proof 
of his proposition could be in the passage when none of its 
leading terms or any others of the same import, were to be 
found in the proof text! This enquiry was repeatedly made, 
but without ever gaining a .satisfactory answer. 

It was also shown that Luke qualifies those in the resur- 
rection of whom he speaks, and restricts the language of 
the Savior, to " those that shall he accounted worthy" On 
the other hand, there was no evidence given to show that 
the words recorded by Matt, included any more than those 
recorded by Luke, seeing that there were only two records of 
the same words. In order to avoid this difficulty,. the gen- 
tleman went into quite an elaborate argument to show that 
Matthew had a better opportunity to know what the precise 
words of the Savior were than Luke, thus implying a mis- 
take on the part of Luke. This I did not admit, for Luke 
declares that he " had a perfect understanding of all things 
from the very first," (Luke 1 : 3.) which will admit of no 
mistake on his part, especially when we consider that he was 
an inspired writer. Nor do I admit that there is any con- 
tradiction between these two divine writers. Yet it is a fact 
that Luke gives a fuller account in this instance than Mat- 
thew ; and in that additional account, he qualifies those of 
whom the Savior spoke in "'the resurrection, to be " they that 
shall be accounted worthy." If then my friend could show 
that "they that shall be counted worthy." shall be holy and 
happy, it would be no new doctrine ! 



UNIVERSAL SALVATION, 



229 



Still further it was shown, that the Savior was simply re- 
plying to an objection of the Sadducees, in doing which he 
informed them, that their difficulty of the woman who had 
had seven husbands, would be obviated, for in the resurrec- 
tion they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are 
as the angels of God in heaven, Their objection was the 
point to which he spoke, and nothing else ; therefore his as- 
sertion that they shall be as the angels, can be extended no 
further, than that they shall be as the angels in this respect ; 
they shall not marry or give in marriage. 

The expression " all live unto him," is in the present 
tense, and consequently cannot mean thai all shall be holy 
and happy. I do not at all deny the fact that " all live unto 
him " in some sense, but it does not mean eternal salvation, 
for ail do not enjoy eternal salvation. 

I have further shown that his applying the words " that 
world" to the resurrection, makes him admit that the Savior 
declares that he who shall sin against the Holy Spirit, shall 
not be forgiven in this world nor that which is to come, or 
the resurrection state. Upon the whole you see clearly that 
his proof-text is taken out of his hands, and some are to be 
counted worthy in the resurrection ; which implies that oth- 
ers will not be counted worthy. There is, then, no Univer- 
salism in the passage. 

2. The second proof-text introduced by Mr. Manford, 
was Rom. 5 : 12, 19. Before he was done with this passage 
he presented so many contradictions, that it will puzzle any 
one in this assembly to tell what he was trying to do. He 
took the position that the "death" mentioned, verse 12, is 
moral death. I then showed that if the death was simply 
moral death, that the resurrection from it could be nothing 
but a moral resurrection. This he admitted. A moral res- 
urrection being simply a conversion to Christianity, must be 
in this life, and consequently we know that it is not univer- 
sal. This cut him off from applying it to the future state at 
all, and consequently cut off his whole argument from the 
passage. 

While on this passage he denied imputed righteousness, 
and consequently at one blow set aside the whole argument 
upon the words, " by the righteousness of one the free gift 
came npon all." Yet he contended that we must be saved 



230 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION, 



through righteousness. I then showed, that if we must be 
saved through righteousness, raid cannot be saved by the 
righteousness of Christ, it must be by our own righteousness ; 
and that consequently we must be righteous in this world or 
go into the world to come, in unrighteousness, and be saved 
through our own righteousness there. From this difficulty 
he never escaped. 

We then showed that in introducing this passage as a 
proof-text, the gentleman had applied it to the resurrection 
state, and that the salvation there spoken of is in the future 
world. If then the salvation spoken of in the passage can 
be shown to be conditional, it not only destroys his proof, but 
establishes the opposite doctrine. A\ the 8th verse the apos- 
tle says, " But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, 
while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Well, if 
Christ has done so much for us while we were yet sinners, 
will he do any thing more for us, if we are justified in this 
life ? He answers in the very next verse, 44 Much more then, 
being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from 
wrath through him." Here present justification is made the 
condition upon which we are to have future salvation from 
wrath through him. One justification is present and the 
other future, and the first gives the assurance of the second . 
But the apostle proceeds, verse 10: " For if, when we were 
enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his son ; 
much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." 
This 44 if," important as it is, my friend leaves out of his 
theory, and says nothing about what will be the results "if 
we are not reconciled." To these important points 1 have 
not been able to obtain any explanation from my opponent. 
It is true he did allow that the salvation from wrath through 
him. was to be saved from sickness ! ! This same 4 4 much 
more," which is made to depend on being "now justified," 
and "being reconciled," is for them 44 which receive the 
abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness." And, as. 
the gentleman does not believe in imputed righteousness, it 
must be our own righteousness. Thus the passage was taken 
from him, and shown to give no evidence of his peculiar 
dogma. 

3. Mr. Manford's third proof-text was Rom. 8: 18 ; 23. 
His whole effort here was on the assumption which he not 



UNIVERSAL SALVATION, 



281 



only failed to prove, but which 1 proved positively to be a 
mistake. That assumption is this : that the word "creature" 
which occurs several times in this passage, means all man- 
kind. This position I denied, and showed to be incorrect; 
first, by referring to many places where the same word oc- 
curred in both Greek and English. He admitted that it did 
not always mean all mankind, but still insisted that it had 
that meaning in the passage in question. By referring to 
the 19th verse, it was shown that it is asserted that "the ear- 
nest expectation of the creature waitethfor the manifestation 
of the sons of God." It cannot be that "creature" here and 
the "sons of God" are the same ; for then it would be that 
" the creature waiteth for the manifestation of itself." We 
have then the creature and the sons of God; therefore crea- 
ture does not include all mankind. At verse 21 we are told 
that "the creature also itself shall be delivered from the bond- 
age of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of 
God." Here we have the same distinction between creature 
and the children of God. The children of God are a part 
of mankind, but no part of the creature ; for the creature was 
not to be delivered into the glorious liberty of itself. This 
would be nonsense. Verse 22, we are informed that "the 
whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until 
now : and not only they, but ourselves also." Here we 
have the "creation," and not only they — the creature— but 
" ourselves also." Whoever is called "ourselves" here, 
were separate from the creature. This is as clear as it can 
be. We have then, in this passage, three distinctions made 
between the creature and persons who certainly form some 
part of mankind. We have 1. The creature and the sons of 
God. 2. The creature and the children of God. 3. The 
creature, and not only they, but we ourselves also. If this 
does not prove that creature here does not mean all mankind 9 
I know not how any proposition may be proved. 

But the gentleman has put great stress on the words "the 
whole creation," and denied that I could show where the 
same expression was used in the whole Bible, where it did 
not include all mankind. In my last speech I referred him 
xo Mark 16 : 15, where the same words occur in Greek, and 
are translated in the same words in some English translations, 
" Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every crea- 



252 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



ture." But who does not know that this does not include all 
mankind 1 He did not command them to preach the gospel 
to the dead, to idiots, or infants. " Every creature/' or 
"whole creation/' then, does not mean all mankind here. 
The main point Mr. M. has pressed, is that I should tell him 
what the word creature does mean. This 1 have not seen 
proper to do, although I am well enough satisfied about it. 
The reason I have not done it, was because it would only 
open the way for Mr. Manford to lead off from the point at 
issue, in assailing a view of mine which does not relate to 
the question. The only thing we are concerned in while in 
this argument, is whether it means all mankind. I have 
shown that it cannot have that meaning, and that is all that 
is incumbent upon me. 1 have done this too so incontrovert- 
ibly, that the gentleman has not attempted to examine onB of 
my positions, from the first to the last. He has asserted in 
his wholesale way, again and again, that "creation" in this 
passage means all mankind, but what has he done towards 
proving it ? Or what has he done towards meeting my ob- 
jections ? 

But what was fatal to his theory was, that I clearly show- 
ed that the 17th verse makes glorification together with Jesus, 
in the coming world, conditional, Beginning at verse 16, 
the apostle says, fi the spirit itself beareth witness with our 
spirit, that we are the children of God : and if children, then 
heirs ; heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ; if so be that 
we sutler with him, that we may be glorified together," — 
Here then, from his own proof-text, he is stranded, and eter- 
nal salvation is shown to be conditional. He has left his 
brethren to work their way out of this difficulty the best way 
they could. He has maintained profound silence. That 
was the best policy ! 

4. His fourth proof- text was 1 Cor. 15. As 1 have al- 
ready reviewed the argument on this passage, in the present 
speech, it will be unnecessary for me to repeat the review 
here in its regular order. I will simply observe, that in ad= 
dition to the review 1 have already made on this point, 1 
have referred to parallel passages, and shown that at the res* 
urrection some would come forth to a resurrection of damna- 
tion, that persons are to be recompensed at the resurrection 
of the just, and, as Rev. 20th, be judged at the resurrection. 



UNIVERSAL SALVATION, 



233 



To all these arguments, bearing so directly on the point, the 
reply has been exceedingly faint. Indeed, it could not be 
otherwise. It is impossible to make something out of noth- 
ing. 

5, Eph. 1:10, was the fifth passage relied on by my friend, 
Mr. Manford. But these points should be established, before 
it will be in point. 1 . It must be shown that the words "might 
gather together" mean "shall gather together." 2. It must 
be established that "gathered together" means saved 3, It 
must be proved that "all things in Christ," means all things 
in the universe, or all things out of Christ, as well as all 
things in him, But on each of these important points he 
gives us nothing but assertion-. How then does the passage 
prove his position ? It does not prove it at all. 

6, Some three passages were quoted to prove that Christ 
will draw all men unto him, but the words, "draw all men 
unto me," and the other similar passages quoted, are not ex- 
actly synonimous with "holy and happy." None of those 
passages say any thing about "finally holy and happy." Nor 
do they mean any such thing, and are therefore not to the 
point, 

7, Finally, the passage found in Rev, 5: 13, is brought 
into the service, But in quoting this passage, which describes 
what John saw after the Lamb had taken the book into his 
hands to open the seals, and before the opening of the seals, 
and applying it to the resurrection state, he cannot avoid 
granting that the opening of the seals is after what is de- 
scribed in verse 13. In this, then, he has virtually admitted 
that the dreadful calamity, at the opening of the sixth seal, 
will be in the resurrection state. Thus ended his triumphant 
proof of the finally holy and happy condition of all mankind 
in the future state. 

In addition to following him through, and taking from him 
every proof-text he has adduced, I have presented several 
counter proof-texts. The first of these is the "sin against 
the Holy Spirit." I believe he has done nothing on this pas= 
sage except to endorse a few words from Dr. A. Clarke, His 
quotation represents Clarke as saying "this world and that 
which is to come," means the Jewish age arid the Christian 
age, Well, suppose I take him at his word; what then'? — 
Why, then the Savior says, "he w r ho shall sin against the 



234 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



Holy Spirit shall neither be forgiven in the Jewish age nor 
the Christian age." If, then, a man was not forgiven in the 
Jewish age, and is not forgiven in the Christian age, where 
will he be forgiven ? But Mark has not so much as left him 
room for that little quibble. It is there said, "hath never for- 
giveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation." How did 
he avoid the force of this language ? Why some one says 
that the passage is wanting in some ancient copy. That is 
exactly the way I would try to get over it, if I were deter- 
mined to preach Universalism right or wrong. I would come 
right up to the point at once, and deny the truth or the divine 
authority of all such passages. By this attempt he has vir- 
tually admitted that this passage disproves his position. 

I told you in the outset that he would explain the soul to 
be the life, before we were through. This he has now done, 
and thus represents the Redeemer as saying what shall it 
profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his life ? The 
soul, then, is nothing but the breath, as destructionlsts would 
say. But if the soul is the breath, or life, what means the 
other passages : "fear him who, after the body is killed, has 
power to destroy both soul and body in hell." Is this soul, 
that can be destroyed in hell after the body is killed, the life ? 
If it is, that life may be punished in hell after the death of 
the body. 

But the gentleman allows that this passage simply asserts 
that God has power to destroy the soul and body in hell, after 
the body is killed. He admits, then, that there is a hell in 
which the soul and body may be destroyed after death. — 
Very well ; we will put that down. But did Jesus teach us 
to fear where there was no danger ? If there is not the lea3t 
danger of the soul and body being destroyed in hell after 
death, why fear God on account of his having the power to 
destroy? Here lies the difficulty. One passage asserts that 
certain characters shall never be forgiven, but are in danger 
of eternal damnation ; another teaches that a man may lose 
his soul; and yet another teaches us to fear Him who, after 
the body is killed, has power to destroy the soul and the body 
in gehenna. 

I maintain that a man cannot be in danger of "eternal 
damnation," unless there is such a thing to be in danger of; 
and I maintain that a man cannot be in danger of losing 



UNTVEB5AL SAT.V-A TT0N, 



235 



his soul unless there is such a thing ; and the soul and body 
will not be destroyed in gehenna, after death, unless there is 
such a place and such a thing, A man may, then, suffer that 
eternal damnation, which the words of Jesus imply — 
that he hath never forgiveness; and the soul may be lost, 
both soul and body being destroyed in hell, after the death of 
the body. 

I declare to you, my hearers and neighbors, after applying 
my mind to the study of the Scriptures for many years, and 
now reflecting upon them in the most solemn manner, that 
should I, at death, go into eternity convinced that I was the 
very person to whom such language applied, I would have 
no more hope of escaping the fierceness and wrath of Al- 
mighty God, than I would have, should our circuit judge law- 
fully pronounce the sentence upon me that I should hang 
till I was dead, dead, of escaping that sentence, Indeed, I 
should not have so much hope, for some do escape such sen- 
tences as that just mentioned; but from the all-seeing eye of 
God's irrevocable justice there is no escape. No deceit or 
hypocrisy will escape ; no cunning and crafty being will be 
able to avoid justice. 

You have now heard us patiently through on two proposi- 
tions. The only decision you are called upon to make, is 
simply to decide for yourselves in such a way as you will 
not have reason to repent of, when you come to die, and at 
the judgment-seat of Christ. Remember that the infallible 
word of God promises that if you do his commandments, are 
faithful unto death, you shall enter by the gates into ihe city, 
and have a right to the tree of life, and go out no more for- 
ever and ever. Is the ingratitude of your heart such as not 
to be willing to enjoy happiness forever, simply because God 
requires you to obey him 1 Then must you be punished. — 
Even the mightiest spirit that burns before the eternal throne, 
has to move in perfect subordination to the will of God. — ■ 
Even Jesus, the express image of the invisible God, in whom 
all the fulness of the God-head dwells bodily, became a little 
lower than the angels, became obedient unto death, and 
learned obedience in the things which he suffered ; and be- 
came the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey 
him. Will you take his example, and learn of him who is 
meek and lowly, and find rest to your soul ? Will you re- 



236 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



member that this is the love of God that you keep his com- 
mandments? If you will , the veracity of his word is pledged 
that you shall be saved. On the other hand, if you feel a 
spirit of irreconciliation to God, and join in vicious language 
relative to the very words of Scripture, such as "infernal 
doctrine of tormenting and burning, " as you have heard on 
the present occasion, you may expect to be subdued by the 
''fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries." — 
"Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord." And 
again, "The Lord shall judge his people." Yes, and he 
will punish the rebellious with that "sorer punishment than 
death without mercy," which Mr. Manford has failed to point 
out in this life, and which no man can find short of destroy- 
ing the soul and body in gehenna, after death. 

If I have in any thing trespassed in referring to any point 
which I ought not in my closing speech, 1 am perfectly wil- 
ling that Mr. Manford shall bring it up on to-morrow. 

[Time expired.] 



PROPOSITION III. 



DO THE SCRIPTURES TEACH THAT THOSE WHO DIE ifjjt DISO- 
BEDIENCE TO THE GOSPEL, WILL SUFFER ENDLESS PUNISH- 
MENT ? 



MR. FRANKLIN'S FIRST SPEECH. 



Respected Audience : 

The subject we are to discuss to-day is one of fearful mag- 
nitude, and 1 hope, as has been the case with the proposi- 
tions already discussed, we shall have your most profound 
attention. My opponent will certainly admit, if 1 am right 
in the position 1 am now about to defend, that all men should 
know it. You are simply requested, then, to lay aside all pre= 
possessions toouching the matter in debate, and let us hear 
honestly what the Lord our God has said, touching this 
great question. We are not here to teach the bible, or rather 
the Author of the bible, what he ought to teach, or what is 
befitting his character : but we are here to hear what he does 
teach, and bow submissively to his authority. Without dc= 
taining you, I will proceed at once to read our proposition, it 
reads as follows : 

Do the Scriptures leach that those who die iifdisobed lence 
to the gospeL will suffer endless punish merit? I affirm, my 
friend denies. 

Although we have a new proposition, placing me in tiie 
affirmative, we have no new subject. Our object in having 
different propositions is simply to elicit argument on all the 
different points of dispute between us. It is the object of 
my friend to prove that all the wicked will be saved, and it is 
my object to disprove it. The object of giving me the affir- 



238 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION, 



mative, if I understand it, is that I may lead in the argu- 
ment and introduce all the arguments, I shall be able to 
introduce, in the short time allotted to us. In order to do 
this, I shall argue three propositions, each of which bears 
directly upon the point before us. 1. I shall labor to show 
that those who die in disobedience to the gospel will not be 
saved. 2. I shall endeavor to show that they will be pun- 
ished after death. 3. 1 shall strive to show that this punish- 
ment will be endless. 

Although I expect to establish each of these positions be- 
yond a reasonable doubt. 1 will observe, that should I simply 
establish any one of them, it ruins the doctrine of my friend, 
and no argument from any other quarter can save it. With= 
out further ceremony, 1 shall proceed to the subject in hand. 

1 , The first passage to which your attention is invited is 
Matt. 7: 13, 14. "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is 
the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, 
and many there be which go in thereat : because strait is 
the gate, and narrow is the way which leadeth unto life, and 
few there be that find it." In connection with this I will read 
its parallel, Luke 13 : 23-29. 6 ' Then said one unto him, 
Lord, are there few that be saved/ And he said unto._t.hem, 
strive to enter in at the straight gate ; for many, I say unto 
you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. AVhenonce 
the master of the house is risen up and hath shut to the door, 
and ye begin to stand without and to knock at the door, say- 
ing, Lord, Lord, open unto us : and he shall answer and say 
unto you, I know you not whence ye are ; then shall ye be- 
gin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and 
thou hast taught in our streets. But he shall say. I tell you, 
I know you not whence ye are : depart from me all ye work- 
ers of iniquity. There shall be weeping and gnashing of 
teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and 
all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves 
thrust out. And they shall come from the east, and from the 
west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit 
down in the kingdom of God.*' 

It appears from these passages that some, like our Univer- 
sal an friends, enquired, "Lord, are there few that be saved 
To this the Savior responded affirmatively, and solemnly 
charged them to "strive to enter in at the strait gate.- In the 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 



239 



place of impressing this upon your minds, my opponent con= 
tends that all will enter in, whether they strive or not. But why 
are they charged to strive to enter in? The Lord, answers : 
"When once the master of the house is risen up and hath 
shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock 
at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us, and he shall 
answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are."— 
But, as if this were not sufficient to forever blast all hope of 
entering, he commands them to strive to enter in at the strait 
gate, "formany, I say unto you, will seek to enter in and 
shall not be able." 

The gentleman cannot find the kingdom on this earth where 
the master has risen up and shut to the door, and persons 
stand without seeking to enter in and are not able. The door 
has never been shut since the Lord had a kingdom on the 
earth, and the master has never rejected any who seek to en- 
ter in, or commanded any such to depart as workers of ini- 
quity. But his language now is, he that seeketh, firideth. 
and he that knockeih it shall be opened unto him.''' But, 
when once the master of the house has risen up and shut to 
the door, and those who did not strive to enter in al the strait 
gate, while he said, "whosoever will, let him come," will stand 
without the door and knock, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto 
us, and will not be able to enter in. Not only so, but they 
shall be thrust out, with the terrible sentence from the lips 
of Jesus, " Depart, ye workers of iniquity. " He also 
adds, "and you shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and 
all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and yourselves 
thrust out." Will he point us to the time and the place when 
and where all this has taken place, or is to take place, this 
side of the resurrection of the dead? I think not. If he 
does not, his cause is gone. No argument from any other 
part of the word of God can save it. 

2. My second argument is drawn from several scriptures, 
which I shall now proceed to introduce, Matt. 6: 19, the 
Lord says, "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon the 
earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt and where thieves 
break through and steal : but lay up for yourselves treasures 
in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and 
where thieves do not breakthrough and steal." Heaven and 
earth are here contrasted. Earth's treasures may be moth- 



240 



THEOLOGICAL PISCU5SI03W 



eaten, corrupted, and stolen ; but the treasures of heaven are 
not liable to these evils. The treasure which cannot be 
moth-eaten, corrupted, or stolen, is the treasure we are com- 
manded to lay up in heaven. But my friend is here to-day 
to prove that all will have treasure in heaven, whether they 
lay it up or not. This I deny ; and contend that, in order to 
secure lasting treasures in heaven we are to lay them up 
there. 

The same doctrine is taught in the following: "Charge 
them that are rich in this world that they be not high-minded, 
nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giv- 
eth us richly all things to enjoy ; that they do good, that they 
be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to commu- 
nicate ; laying up in store for themselves a good foundation 
against the time to come, that they may lav hold of eternal 
ML" 1 Tim. 6: 17-19. 

This passage is very definite. The apostle specifies soma 
of the things to be done, and points out the object to be 
gained by it. That the good works of which he speaks, 
were to be done in this life, is as clear as language can make 
it ; and in the place of teaching that the good man's reward 
is received as he goes along, as my friend teaches, he urges 
the necessity of doing these good works, to secure a good 
foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold 
on eternal life. The eternal life, of which he here speaks, 
cannot be any thing enjoyed in this world, for the persons 
concerning whom, the directions were given, were christians, 
and as such were already in the enjoyment, of ail the 
life and blessings of this world, that could be secured by 
being in Christ; and as such are commanded to do good 
works, thus laying up in store for themselves a good founda- 
tion, against the time to come, that they may lay hold 
on eternal life. How strange it is, in view of this plain 
passage, that my friend should contend, that all men will 
have a good foundation against the time to come, and eternal 
life, whether they do what is here enjoined or not. 

Another passage of scripture bearing on this same point, 
reads as follows : "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek 
those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the 
right hand of God." — Col. 3: 1. Now, the apostle is here 
speaking to his brethren in Christ, and consequently in 



Endless pynishment. 



241 



the enjoyment of all the blessings pertaining to christians in 
this life. These persons, he commands to "seek those 
things which are above." But as if this were not suffi- 
ciently definite, he specifies where the things are, by saying 
"where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God." Did 
the appostle command them to seek for those things, know- 
ing that they could be had without seeking as well as with 1 

Again, the same apostle says, "To them who, by patient 
continuance in well doing, seek for glory and honor and im- 
mortality, eternal life." — Rom. %: 7. It is the business 
of my friend, on this occasion, to show that those also 
who do not seek for glory and honor and immortality, 
shall have eternal life. But here glory and honor and 
immortality are to be sought, in order to obtain eternal 
life. "To them who by patient continuance in welldoing, 
seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life." 

Once more, "He that overcometh shall be clothed in 
white raiment; and I will not blot his name out of the book 
of life, but will confess his name before my Father, and 
before his angels." — Rev. 3: 5. "To him that overcometh, 
will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also over- 
came, and am set down with my Father, in His throne."— 
Rev. 3: 21. Now, think of the converse of the language 
just read. It would read thus : "He that does not over- 
come, shall not be clothed in white raiment, and his name 
shall be blotted out of the book of life, and I will not confess 
his name before my Father, and before his angels, and 
he shall not sit down with me in my throne, as I have 
sat down in my Father's throne." But Universalism teaches 
that all shall be clothed in white raiment, and not have their 
names blotted out of the book of life, but be confessed before 
the Father and his angels, and sit down with Jesus in 
his throne, as he has sat down in his Father's throne ? 
whether they overcome in this life or not. 

"The Lord says, "He that believeth not the Son, shall not 
see life ; but the wrath of God abideth on him."— John 
3: 36. This passage being true, my first position is sus- 
tained beyond the possibility of a reasonable doubt. By- 
refusing to believe the Son of God, it is here positively 
asserted, that "he shall not see life ; but the wrath of 
God abideth on him," 
16 



242 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



1 shall now call your attention to the epistle to the Hebs.: 
"For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every 
transgression and disobedience received a just recompense 
of reward, how shall we escape, if we neglect so great sal- 
vation ; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, 
and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him." — Heb. 
2: 2, 3. I quote this passage simply to show you that 
the Lord will certainly execute his punishment, whatever it 
may be, and that there is no escape for him who shall die in 
disobedience. 

Speaking of the Israelites and their falling in the wilder- 
ness, the Lord says, "I swear in my wrath, they shall 
not enter into my rest." — Heb. 3: 11. The gentleman 
is much in the habit of speaking of the oath of God 
to Abraham, and I hope he will give due attention to this oath. 
And what was it called forth this dreadful oath ? This is ex- 
plained in the verse preceding the one just quoted. The 
Lord says, " Wherefore, 1 was grieved with that generation, 
and said, they do always err in their heart ; and they have 
not known my ways; so I swear in my wrath, they shall not 
enter into my rest." The apostle then exhorts the brethren 
to take heed, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of un- 
belief, in departing from the living God." "For," says 
he, "we are made partakers with Christ, if we hold the 
beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end." He con- 
tinues in another verse : "-So we see that they could not enter- 
in because of unbelief. Let us, therefore fear, lest a prom- 
ise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should 
seem to come short of it." From this it is clear, that 
we must give heed to our conduct, or fail to enter into 
the rest remaining for the people of God. If any man 
comes short of entering into that rest, can he be saved ? 
Yet the gentleman will contend that all will enter in, whether 
they "fear" or not. 

Still further on this point, let me read : "For it is impos- 
sible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of 
the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy 
Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the pow- 
ers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew 
them again unto repentance ; seeing they crucify to them- 
selves, the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENP. 



243 



shame." — Heb. 6: 4, 6. On this very clear and explicit 
statement of the holy apostle, he proceeds to comment as 
follows: "For the earth which drinketh in the rain that 
cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for 
them by whom it is dressed, and receiveth blessings from 
God : but that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected ; 
whose end is to be burned." — Heb. 6 : 7, 8. This passage 
needs but little comment. It shows that a man may get into 
such a condition, that it will be impossible to renew him unto 
repentance, and be as the thorns and briers, whose end is to be 
burned. It will certainly take strong argument to show that 
a man will be saved, whom it is "impossible to renew again 
unto repentance," and " whose end is to be burned." You 
can not find the end of a man, short of his last state, and if 
that is to be burned, how can he be saved ? 

But I must quote the Apostle still further, especially as our 
Universalian friends think he was a Universalist. He says, 
" If we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge 
of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a 
certain fearful looking for of judgment, and firey indignation 
which shall devour the adversaries." Heb. 10: 36,27. The 
Apostle here again gives us his own comment. He says, 
" He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two 
or three witnesses : of how much sorer punishment, suppose 
ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot 
the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, 
wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done 
despite unto the Spirit of grace ? For we know Him that hath 
said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompence saith 
the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. It 
is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." 
From this passage you will see, that a man may get into such 
a condition, by wilful sin, after he comes to the knowledge of 
the truth, that there remains no more sacrifice for his sins,— 
Unless then he can be saved without the sacrifice of Christ, he 
cannot be saved. Not only so, but he is to be punished with a 
sorer punishment than death without mercy. This cannot be 
found in this life. Death without mercy is the sorest punish- 
ment any man can suffer in this life. Yet the punishment of 
which the Apostle speaks is sorer than death without mercy* 

In the 38th verse of the same chapter, he says, " Now the 



244 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION, 



just shall live by faith : but if any man draw back, my soul 
shall have no pleasure in him." Can a man be saved in whom 
God will have no pleasure ? But he continues : " Follow 
peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall 
see the Lord : looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace 
of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, 
and thereby many be defiled ; lest there maybe any fornicator, 
or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold 
his birth-right. For ye know how that afterward when he 
would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected : for he 
found no place for repentance, though he sought it carefully 
with tears." Heb. 12: 14-17. From this passage we learn 
that a man may get into such a condition as to be denied the 
privilege of seeing the Lord, and fail of the grace of God, and, 
find no place for repentance, though he should seek it with tears. 
Can such an one possibly be saved ? 

Jude gives us thefollowing graphic description of certa in 
characters : " These are spots in your feasts of charity, when 
they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear : clouds 
they are without water, carried about of winds ; trees whose 
fruit withers, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the 
roots ; raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame ; 
wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of dark - 
ness forever." Jude 12, 13. Who ever knew a tree twice 
dead, and plucked up by the roots, that ever lived again." — 
How can a man be happy for whom the blackness of darkness 
is reserved forever? 

But let us hear the divine spirit of prophecy, at the close of 
the holy book. "If any man shall add unto these things, God 
shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book : 
and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of 
this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book 
of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are 
written in this book." Rev. 22 : 18, 19. Now is it possible 
for any man to be saved, after the plagues spoken of in this 
book are added to him, and his part is taken out of the book 
of life, and the things written therein, and out of the holy city? 
Surely not. 

Now I ask, in the name of all reason, and in view of the 
candor and faithfulness, as well as the inflexibility of the Al- 
mighty, is it possible for any man to be saved, who has refus- 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 



ed to "lay up treasures in heaven"— refused to "seek those 
things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand 
of God"— would not "follow peace and holiness, without 
which no man shall see the Lord" — utterly failed to "lay up 
a good foundation against the time to come, that he may lay 
hold on eternal life"- — positively refused to "fear lest a prom- 
ise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should 
seem to come short of it" — -who would not "strive to overcome, 
as Jesus overcame, and thus sit down with his Father in his 
throne"—the man whom it "is impossible to renew again un- 
to repentance," and who has " failed of the grace of God" — ■ 
"whose end is destruction"— for whom " there is no more 
sacrifice for sin"— a man in whom "God will have no pleas- 
ure"— a "raging wave of the sea, foaming out his own shame" 
—a "tree twice dead, and plucked up by the roots, for whom 
is reserved the blackness of darkness forever "—for whom 
nothing remains but "a certain fearful looking for of judgment, 
and flrey indignation which shall devour the adversaries"— 
whose part is taken out of the book of life, and out of the holy 
city, and the things written in the book"-- who shall suffer a 
"sorer punishment than death without mercy," for whom there 
is "no repentance" though sought with tears, and who shall 
stand without and knock at the door, after the master shall 
have risen up and shut it to, and cry, " Lord, Lord, open 
unto us," and to whom the Lord will say, " Depart ye work- 
ers of iniquity, I never knew you," and who shall be "thrust 
out into outer darkness," — I say, is it possible such an one 
ever can be saved ? If so, then human speech is incapable 
of expressing any thing but salvation, for such language is 
just as far from salvation as it can be. Truly is it "a fearful 
thing to fall into the hands of the living God!" 

1 hope my friend will give us his best solution of these mat- 
ters, that I may have a fair opportunity to refute his best ar- 
guments. [Tijne expi?*ed.] 



246 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



MR. MANFORD'S FIRST REPLY. 



Resfected Hearers : . 

I certamly agree with Mr, Franklin, that if his proposition 
he true all should know it. There should not be the 
least room left whereon to found a doubt. But so far is this 
from being the case, that thousands and tens of thousands of 
candid and prayerful readers of the Bible, do not believe that 
it teaches any such doctrine. Many orthodox Divines have 
admitted that the doctrine of after death punishment was not 
revealed for nearly 4000 years ! The different notions that 
are entertained with regard to the dogma of ceaseless tor- 
ture 5 would lead us to doubt in this matter. One eminent 
Divine tells that the place of this punishment is in one of 
the comets ; another that it is in the bowels of the earth ; 
another that it is in the sun ; and some cry out one thing and 
some another! The different opinions held with reference 
to the mode of this torture, form a conglomerated and hete- 
rogeneous mass of contradictions and absurdities. The very 
passages which my friend thinks so plainly teaches his doc- 
trine, are not so understood by the best orthodox commenta- 
tors that have ever written ! ! 

Mr, Franklin says that we have not come here to teach 
the author of the Bible, on what is " befhing his character. 99 
He wishes, you will observe, to avoid saying that the doc= 
trine of remediless and ceaseless torture is consistent with 
the character of a God of infinite compassion and undying 
love. Aye, he knows that it is not, He knows that to affirm 
it, would shock the feelings and common sense of all his 
hearers. What! is it " befhing the character " of a God, 
whose " tender mercies are over all his works, " to torture 
his own offspring thoughout the never ending ages of eterni- 
ty ? No, my friend will not say this. But nevertheless he 
seems determined, by a perverted use of the scriptures, to 
support his horrid theory, even though the character of God 
should suffer by it ! ! 

His first proof-text is Matt. 7: 13, 14, and its parallel, 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT* 



247 



Luke 13: 23-29. I am astonished that he should suppose 
this passage relates to the eternal world. One remark of 
our Savior proves that Mr. F. misunderstands the passage.— 
" There shall he weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye 
(the wicked Jews he was addressing) shall see Abraham, 
and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom 
of God, and ye yourselves thrust out" The Jews our 
Lord was addressing either were or would be in the king= 
dom, and would be thrust out of it, and consequently if this 
kingdom is in the future state; if it is in heaven, those Jews 
would go to heaven, remain there awhile and then be cast 
out ! We are charged with believing that men go to heaven 
in their sins, which we deny; but if Mr. F.'s views of this 
.passage are correct * he must admit that the ungodly Jews, 
the persecutors and murderers of the Son of God, were to 
enter that world of purity and bliss, and after remaining there 
awhile were to be cast out! I defy him to avoid this con- 
clusion if the kingdom spoken of there is heaven. Jt must 
be evident to every bible reader, that the kingdom here spo- 
ken of was established on the earth. Jesus tells where this 
is in plain terms, "The kingdom of God cometh not with 
observation. Neither shall he say, Lo, here ! or Lo, there! 
for, behold the kingdom of God is within you^ or more 
properly rendered, is about you. But I need not multiply 
passages on this subject, for every one who has looked into 
the Bil l?, well knows, that the kingdom of heaven wa3estab= 
lished in the earth. The New Testament is full of proof 
of this fact. The Jews were once in the kingdom, hence 
they were called the chosen, the elect, the saved, a holy 
people, the servants of God, a kingdom of priests, the house 
of God; but they fell from their high estate, became cor- 
rupt, and were cast out of this kingdom. Jesus when he 
was on earth told them that " the kingdom should be taken 
from them and given to the Gentiles " and this was done in 
a few years after. They were to be cast out into outer dark- 
ness. Observe, the outer darkness was in the same world 
the kingdom was, and consequently that was on earth too.— 
The Jews were children of light, but they were to be chil- 
dren of darkness. Darkness is here put as a metaphor for 
ignorance and unbelief, and has not respect to a place of 
sjn and misery in the future world. Who hath delivered 



£48 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



us from the powet of darkness." Col. 1: 13. "Bring them 
that set in darkness out of the prison house. " Isa. 42 : 7. 
*' The people that sat in darkness have seen a great light ; 
they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, on them 
hath the light shined." Isa. 9:2. " I will make darkness 
light before them." Isa. 43: 16 Besides it is said, " He 
sitteth an end to darkness." Job 28: 3. And yet Mr. F. 
thinks it will never end ! The Jews ever since they were 
thrust out of the kingdom have been in darness — in sin and 
unbelief. The door of the kingdom has been shut against 
them. As Paul says, " God has concluded them all in un- 
belief." Rom. 11: 32. It is the decree of the Almighty 
that they shall remain in unbelief " until the fulness of the 
Gentiles be coma in." Verse 25. 

What is the strait gate 1 From the preceding verse 
we learn : "Therefore, all things whatever ye would that 
men do to you, do ye even to them ; for this is the law and 
the prophets." Says Dr. Clark, "the words in the original 
are very emphatic : enter in (to the kingdom of God,) 
through this strait gate, i. e. of doing to every one as 
you would he should do to you ; for this seems to 
be the strait gate which our Lord alludes to." This is 
the way to the kingdom and to life. "Whoso findeth me, 
findeth life.," — Prov. 8: 35. "In the way of righteousness 
is life." — 12: 28. It is true that but few enter this strait gate 
into "the kingdom of God, righteousness, joy and peace 
in the Holy Ghost," and enjoy its life and glory ; and if the 
passage refers to the future state, but few will be saved, and 
many be damned; heaven will be nearly empty, while hell 
will be crowded ; Christ will receive but a small portion 
of mankind, while the devil will get nearly all . This fol- 
lows, if the passage relates to the eternal world — if the 
kingdom is heaven, and the outer darkness is hell. Mr. 
Franklin, will you tell us if you believe the few will be 
saved in eternity, and the many be damned endlessly ? 

With regard to Matt. 6: 19,1 believe we should lay up treas- 
ure in heaven, and I have not, as he says, "come here 
to prove that all will have the treasure spoken of there, 
whether they lay them up or not. He had better keep on 
the side of truth. Mr. F. must have a keen eye, to find the 
doctrine of endless damnation in 1 Tim. 6: 17, 19. Paul 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 



249 



told Timothy to charge his hearers "to lay up in store 
for themselves, a good foundation against the time to come, 
that they may lay hold on eternal life." I do not see how 
this can be made to refer to the eternal world. Can we not 
lay in store blessings for time to come, and enjoy them in this 
world ? But says my friend, "the eternal life cannot be any 
thing enjoyed in this world, for the persons concerning 
whom the directions were given, were christians, and conse- 
quently were then in the enjoyment of all the life and bless- 
ings that the gospel affords, in this world." Not quite so fast, 
I supposed Timothy, like modern preachers, now and then 
preached to sinners, those who had not laid in store for time to 
come, those who were not enjoying all the life and blessings of 
the gospel. No doubt the life spoken of in the passage, is the 
life of faith in the Son of God. Jesus says, "He that 
beiieveth on me, hath everlasting life." It is u strange," my 
friend should falsely charge me with contending "that all will 
have the good foundation and eternal life'* spoken of there, 
"whether they do what is here enjoined or not :" I again 
express a hope that hereafter, he will have a little more regard 
for truth. Paul, in Col. 3: 1, tells his brethren to seek 
the things above, meaning the christian graces ; and I would 
say the same to saint and sinner. Who is in possession of all 
the riches of Christ? The most spiritual should continue to 
seek for the treasures of heaven, should "grow in grace," 
should work out their salvation, for when they discontinue 
working, they cease to enjoy the salvation. But, says Mr. F. 
the apostle and his brethren in Christ, were in the enjoyment 
of all the blessings pertaining to the christian in this life! 
That is a new item in religion. Why then did Peter require 
his brethren to grow in grace and in the knowledge of our 
Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."— 2 Peter 3 : 18. It is said 
that Christ, "was full of grace and truth," but I apprehend that 
the best of us have but a small portion of that grace 
and truth. 

I shall pass Rom. 2: 7, with this question, and will thank 
him to answer it : Can immortality beyond the grave be ob- 
tained by seeking it ? 

I believe that he only, who "overcometh" will "be clothed 
in a white raiment," and have his name "in the book of life," 
and be permitted to set on the " throne," and Universalis^ 



250 



THEOLOGICAL DICUSSION. 



does not teach to the contrary. Do you know, Mr. F., that 
it is said in this book, "Thou shall not bear false wit- 
ness against thy neighbor.* 5 

The passage from John 3: 36, is the only passage my 
friend has introduced, that conveys the idea of time in 
connection with punishment ; but a simple reading of the 
whole verse, will be sufficient. 

"He that believeth on the Son hath (not will hav?) ever- 
lasting life. And he that believeth not the Son shall not see 
life; but the wrath of God abideth (not will abide) on Kim." 
Mr. Franklin thinks because "the wrath of God abideth'' on > 
some in this world that it will endlessly abide on them ! But 
what saith the word of God ? " For I am merciful, saith the 
Lord, and will not keep anger forever. "— Jeremiah iii. I£. — 
"For I will not contend forever, neither will I always be wroth; 
for the spirit should fail before me, and the souls which I have 
made/' — Isaiah 57: 16. "He will not always chide, neither 
will he keep his anger forever/' — Psalms cm< 9= "For Ins 
anger endureth but for a moment. " — Psalms xxx. 5. On the 
ether hand we read that " His mercy endureth forever/ ■ — 
Psalms cvi. 1. Forty -two times is this expressly asserted m 
the sacred volume. 

Heb. ii. 2, 3, Why my friend should adduce this passage 
1 cannot conceive. It teaches that, under the Old Dispensa- 
tion, "every transgression and disobedience had received a 
just recompense of reward." And says the apostle, "how 
shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation!" Escape 
what? Why, receiving " a just recompense of reward for 
every transgression and disobedience. " And this recom- 
pense will be according to our deeds. 

Heb, iii. 11. This passage is easily understood. The 
land of Palestine is used as an emblem for the kingdom of 
God. As some of the Israelites were not permitted to enter 
into their land of rest on account of their disobedience and 
unbelief ; so, for the same reason, some will never enter into 
the gospel kingdom. But "we," says Paul, "which have be- 
lieved no (not will) enter into rest." 

Heb. vi. 4: 8. On this passage I will quote Dr. Clarke. — 
"Is nigh to cursing: it is acknowledged, almost on all hands, 
that this epistle was written before the destruction bf Jerusa- 
lem by the Romans. This verse is, in my opinion, a proof 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT . 



251 



of it ; and here I suppose the apostle refers to the approach- 
ing destruction, and perhaps he has this all along in his 
view, but speaks of it covertly, that he might not give offence." 
Dr. Clarke then goes on to say that "there is a good sense 
in which all these things maybe applied ta the Jews at large;", 
and after making this application, and showing in what man- 
ner all the apostle says was true of them, he closes by saying 
that this nation "was nigh unto cursing— about to be cast off 
from the divine protection, and their city and temple were 
shortly to be burned up by the Roman armies. Thus the 
apostle, under the case of individuals, points out the des= 
truction that was to come upon this people in general, and 
which actually took place about seven years after the writing 
of this epistle, And this appears to be the very subject which 
the apostle has in view in the parallel solemn pasages, chap, 
.x. 26-13; and viewed in this light, much of their obscurity 
and difficulty vanishes away."- — Com, in co, My friend says 
that we -cannot find the end of man short of his last state ?" 
Astounding discovery ! ! And he adds, "if the last state of 
man is to be burned, how can he be saved?" Solomon says 
that "the house of mourning is the end of all men" 

According to Mr. Franklin, mourning is the last state of 
all men, and they cannot hope to be saved from it ! Solomon 
simply means that the house of mourning, or death, is the 
end of all men on earth. So the apostle only means that 
death by burning is to end the career on earth of some 
of whom he was writing. To what sickly sophisms will not 
men resort to bolster up a weak cause ? 

Heb, x. 24-31. On this passage I will quote the com- 
merits of Lightfoot and Hammond. 

Lightfootv — ,'Now, what is meant by cutting off ? If you 
ask some, they will put a sense of their own upon one phrase , 
and tell you it means a cutting off from the congregation and 
public assemblies, by excommunication. But ask the Jews, 
to and among whom the thing was spoken, Avhat it means in 
their common speech and acceptation, and they will tell you, 
cutting off means death by the hands of heaven, death or 
destruction by the hand of God : interpreting the matter to 
this purpose, that if a person sinned wilfully and presumptu- 
ously, there was no sin-offering allowed in that case ; but the 
party, so offending, fell immediately under liableness to di- 



252 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



vine vengeance, to he destroyed, or cut off, by the hand of 
heaven. 

"And this interpretation of the phrase of cutting off, the 
apostle doth justify in that passage, (Heb. x. 26,) "If we 
sin wilfully, after we have received the knowledge of the truth, 
there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin ; but a certain fear- 
ful looking for of judgment," etc. — Sermon on 1 John v. 16. 

It will be noticed that this is not a regular commentary on 
the text, but it is an incidental remark, occurring in the illus- 
tration of another passage. Yet, it is not less valuable on 
that account ; for the writer distinctly asserts, that this text 
ought to be interpreted according to the principles he had 
laid clown. 

Hammond. — " The day approaching, v. 25, the notion 
of the clay of Christ, and day and coming of Christ, and 
kingdom of God, and many the like, signifying the destruc- 
tion of the Jews, hath been often mentioned. The other 
phrases have been gathered together from their dispersions 
through this book. Note on Matt. 3: 2, 24: 3, &c. Now 
for this phrase, day, or day of Christ, although somewhat 
hath been said on Rom. 13: 12, yet. now more fully it must 
be explained. The force of the phrase may appear, Zech. 
14: 1 : * Behold the day of the Lord cometh, and I will 
gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the 
city shall be taken,' &e. And so in many places in the Old 
Testament: and accordingly in the New, Luke 17: 24, the 
Son of Man in his day, that is when he comes to destroy Je- 
rusalem ; and so, Matt. 24: 36, of that day and hour, that is, 
the punctual time of this destruction, (not of the day of the 
last judgment, but of somewhat that was to come in that age, 
ver. 34,) knows no man. So, Luke 17: 30, the day wherein 
the Son of Man shall be revealed ; and verse,21, in that day, 
and 19: 49, the days shall come in which thy enemies shall 
cast a trench. So, Acts 2: 20, the great and conspicuous day 
of the Lord, from which none of the Jews should escape, but 
only the believers. In which place, as it is cited out of Joel, 
it is observable that there is the first mention of the last days, 
ver. 17, (which as the Jews render the days of the Messias, 
so Peter interprets the time after the resurrection of Christ, 
in which the spirit was poured out,) then of this great dav, 
verse 29, which is, as it were, the last of the last, forty years 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT, 



253 



after his resurrection, in which Judea was to be laid waste- 
So 1 Cor. 1: 8, the day of the Lord Jesus, agreeable to the 
revelation of the Lord Jesus, v. 12; both of them denoting 
this time of judgment on unbelievers, and deliverance of the 
faithful. See also chap. 3: 13, So Thess. 5, as times and 
seasons, v. 1, refer to this matter, (as the time is come, Esk. 
2: 7,) so, the day of the Lord cometh as a thief, v. 2, (the 
same that is said of it, 2. Peter, 3: 10.) belongs to this matter 
also. So, 2 Thess. 2: 10, in that day. So here, the day ap- 
proaching, as Luke 2: 8, the season approaching, or as Joel 
2: 1, the day of the Lord is come, it is nigh at hand. So the 
day dawning, 2 Pet. 1: 19, is that day of judgment to the 
Jews, deliverance to the believers among them." Cappe and 
Whitby agree with this interpretation. 

1 have quoted these lengthy notes for the information of 
the hearer, not to meet any argument which my friend has 
brought from the passage under consideration, for the dura- 
tion of punishment. 

"To whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever." 
Mr. Franklin asks how a man can be happy for whom is re- 
served the blackness of darkness forever? I shall answer 
this question by asking another. If it is true that Jonah was 
in the whale's belly forever, how did he get to Nine veil af- 
terwards ? 

I did indeed look for a better effort from my friend. But 
he has scarcely brought forward a single passage, which 
speaks of the duration of punishment, which is the matter 
in dispute. And I now say to him that I shall pay but little 
attention to those passages which are not to the point. 

Mr. Franklin has divided his proposition into three parts ; 
this is absolute nonsense ! He is to prove, if he can, that a 
part — the much greater part ! ! — of God's own offspring will 
suffer the pangs of unceasing torture; and he need not attempt 
to escape this issue by subtle (?) divisions of his proposition? 

I shall occupy the rest of my time in making some objec- 
tions to the doctrine of endless torment : 

1. It makes God the Author of an infinite evil. Misery 
is evil. The idea of misery infinite in duration, pre-suppo- 
ses the idea of infinite evil. No finite being can be the cause 
of infinite evil. God is the only infinite being in the uni- 
verse. If, therefore, infinite evil does exist, its existence 



254 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



must be referred to God. But to suppose God the Author of 
an infinite evil, is to suppose that he is infinitely evil himself. 

2. It impeaches some of the most glorious attributes of 
the Deity. If it be said that this evil is something which 
God did not foresee, wish, will, desire, appoint, intend, or 
purpose, then his wisdom, fore-knowledge and omniscience 
are expressly denied. If it be said that he foresaw this evil, 
but could not prevent it, this impeaches his power, goodness, 
justice, mercy and benevolence ; because, to all whom he 
created, knowing that their existence would be an endless 
curse, he is neither good, just, merciful, nor benevolent. If 
it be said that this evil is something which he actually did 
will, wish, desire, purpose and appoint; this not only im- 
peaches his goodness, justice, mercy and benevolence, but 
it makes him as malignant as malignity itself — as perfect a 
monster of cruelty, and as much worse than a Caligula or a 
Nero, or even the fabled god of hell, as he possesses more 
power than they to do mischief — to inflict pain and misery. 

3. It can result in no good to any being or beings in the 
universe; and is, therefore, not only useless, but infinitely 
worse than useless ! ! 

4. It teaches that the divine justice is of such a nature 
that it can never be satisfied. For what is endlessly doing, 
will, of course, never be done. 

5. It does violence to the reasoning powers of man, and 
is abhorrent to the better feelings of his nature. 

6. If my friend's views of his first proof-text be correct, 
not more than one in a thousand will be saved ! The popu- 
lation of heaven will be to the population of hell as the small- 
est village to the largest city. Consequently, nine hundred 
and ninety-nine out of every thousand of God's own offspring 
will have just cause to curse him for their existence through- 
out all eternity ! "His tender mercies are over all his works V 9 

7. The doctrine of endless torture makes it an utter im- 
possibility for us to love its Author. We cannot love that 
which is unlovely ; it is a moral impossibility. 

8. It represents God as acting contrary to his own law ; 
which is to "overcome evil with good." Indeed, the inflic- 
tion of endless misery would be an infinite and practical vio- 
lation of the precept, "overcome evil with good." If it would 
not, I should like to inquire what would be an infinite and 
practical violation of this precept? 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 



255 



9. The doctrine of endless torture contradicts the Scrip- 
tares. " I ivill not contend forever, neither will I always 
be wroth; for the spirit should fail before me, and the souls 
which 1 have made." " Heretaineth not his anger forever, 
because he delighteth in mercy.' ' 

I have now made a few objections to this horrid dogma 
contained in Mr. Franklin's proposition. Many more will 
be given. 

I now urge my friend to come up to this work manfully. — 
Let him not undertake to divide and sub-divide his question, 
for this will do no good. He must prove that God will "retain 
his anger forever" — that he will "contend forever" — that 
his "anger is not only for a moment," but that it is endless 
in duration — that he will 'alioays be wroth' — that he will 'al- 
ways chide' — that he does not "delight in mercy," but in 
cruelty — that he does not "overcome evil with good" — that 
he does not " love his enemies"— and finally, that he is not 
"kind to the evil and unthankful." [ Time expired .[ 



MR. FRANKLIN'S SECOND SPEECH, 



Gentlemen Moderators : 

My friend, Mr. Manford, seems much out of humor this 
morning. He certainly did not sleep soundly last night, or 
he could at least, seem to be in a little better humor with his 
miserable contradictory system, if I may be allowed to call 
it a system. But he is not only provoked with the native 
crookedness of his theory, but, to add aggravation to aggra- 
vation, I have divided and subdivided my proposition, and 
argued it so differently from what he expected, that he be- 
came perplexed before he got through near all my argument; 
and resorted to several learned doctors to help him out ; but, 
failing in that way, he flew off in a tangent, and threatened 



256 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



not to pay much attention to my arguments, unless he thinks 
they are to the point. Had I paid no attention to his argu- 
ments, when 1 was respondent, except such as I thought to 
the point, I should have noticed very few of them ; but I 
thought it was my duty to follow him closely, and show that 
his arguments were not to the point. He wishes me to argue 
the duration of punishment ; and why] because he can do 
better on that part of the question? No, verily; but he wishes 
to save his contradictory system from being riddled from end 
to end, as he sees it is bound to be, if he cannot decoy me 
off from the real substance of the question. But he cannot 
endure the idea of dividing the question into three parts, for 
it makes "nonsense" It was no nonsense for him, in the 
speech you have just heard, to divide a few of the old tatter- 
ed remnants of his doctrine, which have been scattered to the 
four winds fifty times within the last few years, into nine ob- 
jections. No, indeed, that was all good sense — profound 
reason, argument, and logic ! But, if the gentleman is right 
anxious to get to the duration of punishment, he can grant, 
in his next speech, that I have clearly proved that those who 
die in sin will never be saved, and that they will be punished 
after death, and I will proceed at once to show that the pun= 
ishment will be endless. If he will not do this, he will have 
to wait a short time and he shall have a full satisfaction on 
that point. 

My friend argues with me, that if the doctrine of endless 
punishment is true, all ought to know it. Will he tell us, in 
his next, why all ought to know it? If he will I will accom- 
modate him as much when I can. But he cannot believe it 
is, for thousands and tens of thousands do not know it. If 
this is an argument, it will come to my hand exactly ; for 
none but a mere handful of the human race believe in Uni- 
versalism, or ever have, and therefore it cannot be true. He 
must look out what kind of weapons he uses, or he will dis- 
prove his own doctrine. 

I could but feel for the gentleman when he approached my 
first proof-text, Matt. 7: 15, and its parallel in Luke. He 
tried two stratagems, but without success. His first was that 
if the entrance spoken of in this passage was into heaven, 
that the wicked enter heaven. But this is merely a figment 
of his own brain, for neither of the passages, nor anything 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 



257 



said upon them by me, intimates that the wicked enter that 
kingdom. If the entrance is not into heaven, what is it into? 
Why, the kingdom on earth, my friend allows. Well, who 
does he say enter into it? Why, in his speech, which you 
have just heard, <he says the persecutors and murderers of 
Jesus. These, with him, constitute the body of Christ — the 
temple of the Holy Spirit ! And what did he make out the 
gate to be, by wnich they entered? Why " doing unto all 
men as we would have them do unto us." These persecutors 
and murderers of Jesus, then, by doing unto all men as they 
would have them do unto them, entered into the kingdom, 
and then for doing unto all men as they would have them do 
unto them, in persecuting and putting to death Jesus and the 
saints of God, they were cast out into outer darkness! And 
behold, and hear it, all ye ignorant opposers of Universalism, 
that this " outer darkness," into which they were cast, is 
merely ignorance, which they were in before ! Not only so, 
but the gate, is to "do unto all men as we would have them 
do unto us" in this life, and the Master is to rise up and shut 
to the door, or the privilege of doing unto all men as we 
would have them do unto us. Has he shut to this gate yet ? 
What glorious consistency ! 

This kingdom being on earth is, of course, the church, and 
as all other churches are wrong, it must be the Universalian 
church, and we must all strive to enter in, for when once the 
Master of the house, or the Universalian church, is risen up 
and has shut to the door, and we stand without, crying, Lord, 
Lord, open unto us, he will cease to "love:" his "tender mer= 
cies" will cease to endure, and he will thrust us out ; for Mr, 
M. will have it that "standing at the door, and saying, Lord, 
Lord, open unto us," means that we were in, and that striving 
to enter in and shall not be able means that we are already 
in, and we shall be cast into outer darkness or ignorance as 
we are already ! Well, if my friend can prove that standing 
withont means within, I suppose he can prove that all the 
wicked will go to heaven ; for it will have to be done by some 
such process, if it is ever proved at all. But there has never 
been any kingdom on this earth of which the master has risen 
up and shut the door, and persons standing without and plead- 
ing for admittance, were commanded to depart without being 
able to enter in. As I showed before, the language of the 
17 



258 



THEOLOGICAL PISCUSSION, 



master now is, " whosoever will, let him come." " Come 
unto me all ye that are weary and heavy laden, and J will 
give you rest." But there is a time coming when the door of 
the kingdom of God is to be shut, and persons are to fail of 
an admittance and be thrust away into outer darkness. Mr. 
M. was exceedingly unfortunate when he quoted the words, 
"the kingdom of God is in you," to prove that the Jews were 
in the kingdom. But I must not add anything more to his 
mortification on this passage. 

Relative to laying up treasures in heaven, the gentleman 
says, " I believe we should lay up treasure in heaven, and 1 
have not, as he says, come here to prove that all will have the 
treasure spoken of whether they lay it up or not. He had 
better keep on the side of truth." My Universalian friends, 
did you notice that ? Your preacher and editor has renounc- 
ed his doctrine, and does not believe that all will have treas- 
ure in heaven, whether they lay it up or not ! ! ! Yes, and 
he cautions me to stick to the truth, when I say he believes 
so. Well, he now stands right on this point, and with me 
joins in exhorting you to lay up treasure in heaven, ibr he 
does not believe you will have treasure in heaven whether you 
lay it up or not. He is turning orthodox pretty fast ! 

The gentleman's subterfuge on 1 Tim. 6 : 17, 19, will not 
answer. He tries to make the good foundation against the 
time to come, end the eternal life, all in this world. In order 
to do this, he allows that Timothy sometimes preached to sin- 
ners. I suppose he did, but Paul did not write to him to 
show him how to preach to the world at large, but to show 
him "how to behave himself in the house of God," and in do- 
ing this, he told him to "charge them that are rich in this 
world, that they be not high-minded, nor trust in uncertain 
riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly, all things 
to enjoy ; that they do good, that they be rich in good works, 
ready to distribute, willing to communicate : laying up in 
store for themselves a good foundation against the time to 
come, that they may lay hold on eternal life." Now those 
persons could not be induced to do these things without faith, 
and consequently they need all the spiritual blessings and 
life of believers ; and as such must be charged to do these 
good works, not to obtain these spiritual blessings which they 
already had, but to "lay up in store a good foundation against 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 



259 



the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life."— 
The doctrine of this passage is a stranger to my friend's whole 
theory, and one which he refuses to entertain at that. But 
the gentleman says, "it is strange my friend should falsely 
charge me with contending that all will have the good foun- 
dation and eternal life, spokerf of there, whether they do what 
is here enjoined or not. 1 again express a hope that hereafter 
he will have a little more regard for truth." He does not be- 
lieve, then, that all will have "a good foundation against the 
time to come, and eternal life," whether they do what is here 
enjoined or not ! ! No, and I do not have a proper regard to 
truth if I say so. Well, then, I take back what 1 said, and 
now state, in justice to Mr. Manford, that he does not believe 
that all will have a good foundation against the time to come, 
and eternal life, whether they do what is here commanded or 
not ; but he believes, with me, that none but those who do 
good, are rich in good works, ready to distribute and willing 
to communicate, will have a good foundation against the time 
to come, and lay hold on eternal life. I will have a regard to 
truth, and make corrections when 1 fall into mistakes. He 
has then renounced his doctrine, and holds the exclusive doc- 
trine, that no one can have eternal life who does not these 
good works. 

The "things above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand 
of God," my friend allows, are the Christian graces! Then 
the Christian graces are not on earth, or in the church, but 
fc * above where Christ sitteth on the right hand^of God ! " No 
such an evasion as this will answer the purpose. The ex- 
pression is definite. The disciples to whom the apostle spoke 
already had the Christian graces and the present salvation, 
and are commanded to " seek those things which are above, 
where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God." My friend is 
in the habit of promising all men the things above, where 
Christ sits, whether they seek them or not. 

Mr. M. passes the words, "to them who by patient contin- 
uance in well doing, seek for glory, and honor, and immor- 
tality; eternal life," Rom. 2 : 7, by asking me the question, 
"can immortality beyond the grave be had by seeking ?" — 
He must remember that the language of this passage of scrip- 
ture is not mine, but Paul's ; and that he cannot confound 
Paul, or God, who spoke through him, by asking questions, 



260 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



and that he had better rely upon his promise, and seek for 
"glory and honor and immortality" in order to "eternal life," 
than to doubt that God will give it to them who seek. I an- 
swer then, that this immortality can be had by seeking for it, 
and that this glory, honor, immortality and eternal life, will 
never be enjoyed by any accountable being who neglects to 
seek for it. Will he answer the following? Can any person 
by seeking for it obtain this glory, honor, immortality and 
eternal life, in this ivorlcU 

Mr. M. says, "he believes that he only who 'overcomeuY 
will 'be clothed in white raiment,' and have his name 'in the 
book of life,' and be permitted to sit on the 'throne,' and Uni- 
versalism does not teach to the contrary." He then asked if 
I did not know that this book forbids bearing false testimony. 
He did this in his anger and confusion, knowing that he could 
make no reply. But did you observe that he did not quote 
the text correctly before he said he believed it? But even in 
his garbled quotation he has admitted too much for his doc- 
trine. He believes that only those who overcome shall be 
clothed in white raiment, have their names written in the book 
of life, and sit down with Jesus in his throne. And what of 
the balance ? Why, they will not be clothed in white raiment, 
will not have their names in the book of life, and will not sit 
down with Jesus in his throne. This is a splendid defence of 
his doctrine truly ) 

He admits the object I had in view in quoting the passage 
from the 2d of Heb. viz : that there is no escape for the trans- 
gressor. But on the argument on the 3d and 4th chapters of 
Heb. he attempted no reply except a very dull and stupid 
quibble. Having shown to his brethren, how the Israelites 
failed to enter into the earthly Canaan, the Apostle said, "let 
us therefore fear lest a promise being left us of entering into 
his rest any of you should seem to come short of it." Had my 
friend been there he would have said, you need not fear, for we 
shall all enter into that rest whether we fear or not. 

When the gentleman came to those whom it was "impossi- 
ble to renew again unto repentance," Heb. 6, he despaired of 
accomplishing an impossibility, and proceeded to make some 
garbled quotations from Dr. Clark, which had about as much 
to do with our question as the man in the moon ; and when 
he came to those for whom there is no more sacrifice for sin, 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT, 



261 



and for whom nothing remaineth but a fearful looking for of 
judgment and fiery indignation — -a sorer punishment than 
death without mercy, he filled up his time in reading, as usual., 
when he can make no reply. But what else could he do?-— 
You need not think hard of him. Can he prove that a man 
can be brought to repentance imd saved, when God says it is 
"impossible to renew him unto repentance." When God 
says, that for certain characters, there " remains nothing but 
a certain fearful looking for of judgment, and fiery indignation 
which shall devour the adversaries," do you expect him to 
prove that a glorious heaven remains for them % When the 
Lord says of certain characters, "there remains no more sac= 
rifice for sin," do you expect him to prove that there is more 
sacrifice for sins? When God says of certain characters, "my 
soul shall have no pleasure in them," do you expect him to prove 
that God will have pleasure in them ? And when the Lord 
speaks of certain persons failing of the grace of God, do you 
expect him to prove that they will not fail of the grace of God, 
or that they can fail of the grace of God and be saved?— 
When the Lord says of certain characters, that " their part 
shall be taken out of the book of life and out of the things 
written therein, and out of the holy city," do you expect him 
to prove that their part shall not be taken out of the book of 
life? If you expect all this you expect what no man under 
heaven can do. He knows that he must make a most 
manifest failure, if he undertakes to do this, therefore 
he spends his time in reading Dr. Clark. I thought I was to 
debate with Mr. E. Manford, but it appears to be his notion 
of the matter, that he is to read Dr. Clark, and that I am to 
reply to the Doctor. But I do not think hard of him as he 
can do no better. 

I must say a word on my friend's nine objections. 1. My 
doctrine "makes God the author of infinite evil." Not at all, 
I do not believe, as I heard Mr. Craven try to prove, in a ser- 
mon in Dayton, Ohio, that God is the author of sin. God 
created man, and made a law to govern him ; but there was 
no sin yet. Man transgressed that law, and "sin is the trans- 
gression of the law;" this act was man's act. But did not 
Mr. M. in his first speech admit that by neglecting or improve 
ing our talents in this world, we could alter our condition in 
the world to come ? Well, in this he granted that a finite be- 



262 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



ing could perform an act in this life, that would affect an infi - 
nite state. If then, by neglecting our talents in this life, we 
m be brought to some of the lower degrees in glory, as my 
friend admits, this neglect proves an evil to us in an infinite 
state, and may be the means of keeping us in the lower degrees 
of glory perpetually, and consequently be as properly called 
infinite evil as endless punishment. 2. "It impeaches some 
of the glorious attributes of the Deity/' It is worth while for 
Universalists to talk of impeaching the attributes of God ! The 
very first article I ever noticed in the gentleman's own pub- 
lication, w r as an article written to show that God was the au- 
thor of all evil. And I heard the gentleman in this town, in 
the presence of several citizens, ridicule the idea that a man 
by respecting and obeying God, could be exonerated from 
the punishment due to him as a transgressor. His God, ac- 
cording to his own doctrine, is the author of all sin, and then 
he punishes the sinner as much as his sins deserve, and will 
not mitigate the punishment in the least, on account of any 
repentance, obedience or any thing in the power of man to do. 
Yet "his tender mercies endure forever ! ! " It comes witfi 
an ill grace to hear men talk of impeaching the character of 
God, who deny the " sorer punishment than death without 
mercy," of which God speaks, and positively declare that all 
punishment is in this life. Universalists have no fears that it 
will injure the character of God, to threaten a sorer punish- 
ment than death without mercy, and then quibble round it by 
saying he only meant a little remorse of conscience ! But if 
my friend wished me to expose the absurdity of such sophis- 
try, I can do it just as well now as at any other time. You 
will observe then, that when he talks about punishment he 
universally calls it torture or misery. Well, he understands 
the punishment of the bible to be torturejor misery then. — 
Where then does he find^this dreadful torture? Where does 
yon drunkard, liar, thief, robber or fornicator, suffer this tor- 
ture? Why he is receiving it now every day as he goes along 
— suffering the damnation of hell ! ! He laughs, sports, ca- 
rouses and has "pleasure in iniquity." Well, now go to this 
awful creature and convince him that he is bound to remain 
in this condition to all eternity, and he will tell you that it is 
just what he wants. Well, then, if the damnation of hell can 
be thus endured, and the vengeance of an eternal fire is no 

7 w 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 



263 



severer than this, why does he talk so pitifully about it? If 
men can be in hell and not even know it, rejoice and have 
pleasure, and be entirely willing to stay in it, how can he 
make it such a cruel thing'to keep men in it? But the gentle- 
man can change his tone at pleasure. When he talks of pun- 
ishment in connection with his doctrine, he calls it 6, chastise- 
ment," but when he talks of it in connection with my doctrine 
he calls it "torture," "misery;" &c. Now if the Bible means 
misery, torture. &c, when he speaks of punishment, why 
does he not use those terms in reference to the hell of con- 
science? He knows it would outrage common sense. 3. 
Endless punishment can do no good, he allows. His hell 
does great good, when those in it, and all around it, do not 
know it, and almost the whole of them think it will be in ano- 
ther world ! ! He cannot tell what it is himself. Yet he can 
look into the secret counsels of Jehovah, and then turn round 
and scan the innumerable intelligences of the universe, and 
see, at a single glance, that the future punishment of the dis- 
obedient can do no good. He is determined that it shall do 
no good in this world, if he can help it, and consequently fa- 
ces the creditor, and tells him what an awful character he 
must be, thus to contradict Universalism ; and that no being 
can be any worse than God, if he shall inflict endless punish- 
ment on those who live and die in disobedience. 4. "It teach- 
es that the divine justice is of such a nature that it cannot 
be satisfied." No sir; this is all a mistake. The divine jus- 
tice will inflict that punishment which he has threatened, and 
be satisfied all the time. 5. "It does violence to the reason- 
ing powers of man, and is abhorrent to the better part of his 
nature," The gentleman simply made that statement from his 
own impassioned determination, and not from any philosoph- 
ical examinations. It simply strikes him in that way. 6. If 
my doctrine is true, there will be so few saved. Will his doc- 
trine help the matter any? Not at all. I do not know that 
he has any saved from his hell. At least, he has as many 
who suffer the vengeance of his hell, as we do who suffer the 
vengeance of the future hell. If the number that will be lost 
is an argument against a hell after death, it is a stronger ar- 
gument against a hell before death. 7. "It makes it impos- 
sible for us to love its author." This is merely a threat of 
my friend, that he will not love God, if he shall dare to pun- 



264 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



ish men eternally. This does not surprise me any. 8. "It 
represents God as acting contrary to his law." Well, then, 
a hell in this world is contrary to his law. To punish a man 
for sin in this world, especially if a man cannot help sinning, 
as my friend thinks, is certainly contrary to the precept, 
"overcome evil with good," if future punishment would be. 
The contradiction is simply that my friend contradicts him- 
self. 9. "The doctrine of endless torture is a contradiction 
of the scriptures." I shall now proceed to ascertain what 
doctrine it is that contradicts the scriptures. 

The scripture says, " I charge thee therefore before God, 
and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the 
dead at his appearing and kingdom." c ^ Tim. 4: 1. Universal- 
ism says, Christ shall nut judge the dead, and that there is no 
use in a judgment alter death. The scripture says, that Je- 
sus Christ commanded the apostles "to preach unto the peo- 
pie, and testify that it. is he which was ordained of God to be 
the judge of the quick and dead." Acts 10: 42. Universal- 
is!© says Jesus Christ is not the judge of the dead. The 
scripture says, "And it is appointed unto men once to die, 
and after this the Judgment." Ueb. 9: 27. Universalism 
says, there is no judgment after death. The scripture says, 
of "a certain rich man," that he "died and was buried ; and 
in hell he lifted up his eyes being in torments." Luke 16: 22, 
23 t Universalism says there is no torment, after death. The 
scripture says, "with lies ye have made the heart of the right- 
eous sad, whom 1 have not. made sad, and strengthened the 
hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wick- 
ed way, by promising him life." Ezek. 13: 22. Universalism 
says it does not strengthen the hands of the wicked to prom- 
ise him life. The scripture says, "but the fearful, and unbe- 
lieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremon- 
gers, and sorcerers, and idolators, and all liars, shall kiave 
iheir part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone : 
which is the second death." Rev. 21: 8. Universalism says 
all the wicked shall be saved. The scripture says, " and* 1 
saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the 
books were opened: and another book was opened, which is 
the book of life, and the dead were judged out of those things 
which were written in the books according to their works. 5 ' 
Eev- 20: 12, But Universalism declares that the dead shall 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 



265 



not be judged. The scripture says, "these shall go away in- 
to everlasting punishment : but the righteous into life eternal." 
Mat. 25; 46. Universalism says there is no everlasting pun- 
ishment. Now vou can see what doctrine it is that contra- 
dicts the scripture. More palpable contradictions than these 
cannot be found in human speech ; and yet the gentleman 
talks of contradictions of scripture ! 

Now, if the word of God can prove, that Jesus Christ 
" shall judge the quick and dead "- — that Christ " was or- 
dained to be the judge of quick and dead "—that " it is ap- 
pointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment "— 
that a man "died and was buried ; and in hell he lifted up 
his eyes being in torments " — that it is a doctrine of "lust 
and strengthens the hands of the wicked, that he should 
not return from his wicked way," to " promise him life " — 
that " the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and 
murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, 
and all liars, shall have their part in the lake of fire and 
brimstone : which is the second dealh"-^--that " the dead 
small and great, shall stand before God ; * * * and be judg- 
ed out of those things which are written in the books, acord- 
ing to their works ,, «— -and that " the wicked will go away in- 
to everlasting punishment." I say; if the word of God sta- 
ting them in so many words, can prove these points, I shall 
take it that I have proved them. 

In my first speech on this proposition, I proved that it was 
"impossible to renew" some persons " unto repentance" — 
thai " there is no more sacrifice for their sins"— that " noth- 
ing remains for them but a fearful looking for of judgment, 
and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries "— 
that " God will have no pleasure in them "—that they failed 
of the grace of C4od, and come short of an entrance into 
that rest. Unless then, they can be saved without repen- 
tance, without any thins: remaining for them but a fearful 
looking for of judgment, and fiery indignation — without God 
having pleasure in them, and without the grace of God, they 
cannot be saved. An answer to this Mr.M. has made, and 
never can make. 

1 showed that God threatens a sorer punishment than 
death without mercy, which I defy man to find in this world ; 
and I have now shown that judgment will be after death — 



266 



THEOLOGICAL DTSCTTSSION. 



that the dead will stand before God— that a wicked man af- 
ter death, lifted up his eyes in hell, being in torments — and 
that the wicked will go away into everlasting punishment at 
the same time the righteous go into life eternal. 

I now advise the gentleman, when he finds arguments to 
which he can make no reply, to read Dr. Clarke, and pre- 
tend that the Dr. is on his side. It is true, there are not 
many who will believe it, but some of his brethren perhaps 
will. [Time-expired;] 



MR. MANFORDS SECOND REPLY, 



Respected Auditors: 

Mr. Franklin tells you that I am out of humor, and that I 
say some things in anger and confusion ! This is indeed 
news to me ! I suppose, however, that there are times w hen 
he has nothing else to say. My friends, I am not in the 
habit of getting out of humor, and of saying things in an- 
ger. The gentleman, I apprehend, is only jesting! 

He says he has "divided and sub-divided his proposition." 
Yes, he has done so, sifre enough ; and no doubt to avoid 
the main question at issue— the duration of punishment; but 
I shall continue to urge upon him the necessity of coming 
up to this point, and shall pay but little or no attention to 
any thing else he may say. 

I said in my last speech that if endless punishment be true, 
every body ought to know it. My friend thinks then, that 
if Universalism be true, every body ought to know it — and 
says, " but a mere handful of the world believe in Univer- 
salism ! " How many, T ask, believe in Campbellism, or 
know any thing about it? But you will notice the reason 
why I made the statement : T seldom say any thing without 
i have a reason for it. If so awful a doctrine as endless 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT, 



267 



punishment be true, then the whole world ought to know it, 
that they might have a chance to avoid it ; but the fact that 
but a small portion of the world know any thing about it, 
is pretty good evidence that it is false — for our Heavenly 
Father would not be likely to place his children in such im- 
inent danger — where their eternal interests are at stake — 
without giving them warning of it, in a manner, too, not to 
be misunderstood. It is true, it would be better for the world 
if every body was acquainted with Universalism, and be- 
lieved in it; but then there is not so much — nothing in fact 
—at stake, if Universalism be true, in comparison with what 
there is, if endless punishment be true! So you see the 
cases are not parallel, and my friend's endeavor to affect the 
argument is a complete failure. I have now told the gentle- 
man " why all ought to know it," if his doctrine be true ; 
1 hope he will be satisfied. 

I merely gave Dr. Clarke's opinion in regard to the gate 
spoken of in Matt. 7: 13 — her>ce Mr. Franklin ridicules the 
Doctor, not me. I doubt, however, very much, whether he 
can give a better definition of it ! But let us pay some at- 
tention to our friend's proof text ; I have something more to 
say on this subject. 1 said that " if the entrance spoken of in 
this passage was into heaven, then the wicked entered heav- 
en ! " But he ridicules this idea, and says " it is a figment 
of my own brain," and says that " neither of the passages, 
nor any thing he has said upon them, intimates that the 
wicked enter that kingdom" — and asks, " if this entrance is 
not into heaven, what is it into? " I told him before that it 
was into the " kingdom on earth ;" but he laughs at this 
idea also ! Let us now look into this matter a little, for I 
think my friend has got into a difficulty here, and I am dis- 
posed to help him out, if I can. I thought I made this mat- 
ter plain enough in my last, by showing that if the kingdom 
meant heaven, as my friend contends, then the wicked en- 
ter heaven. But he seems more disposed to indulge in ridi- 
cule than to meet my argument fairly. I will now read from 
Luke 13, his parallel proof text — commencing with the 24th 
verse. 66 Strive to enter in at the strait gate ; for many I 
say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able,— 
When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath 
shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock 



268 



THEOLOGICAL DISCISSION. 



at the door, saying. Lord, Lord, open unto us ; and he shall an- 
swer and say unto you, 1 know you not, whence ye are , then 
shall ye begin to say, we have eaten and drank in thy pres- 
ence, and thou hast taught in our streets. But he shall say, 
I tell you, I know you not; depart from me all ye workers 
of iniquity. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, 
when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, Jacob, and all the 
prophets, in the Kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust 
out." How could these workers of iniquity be thrust out 
of the kingdom unless they were first in it ? Does the king- 
dom here mean heaven ? 

Again : " The Son of Man shall send forth his angels, 
and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that of- 
fend, and them which do iniquity, and shall cast them into a 
furnace of fire ; there shall be wailing and gnashing of 
teeth." Matt. 13: 41,42. Does kingdom, here mean hea- 
ven ? If so, does it not look like the wicked had got into it? 

Matt. 8 : 1 1— " And 1 say unto you, that many shall come 
from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, 
and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven ; but the 
children of the kingdom (Jews ) shall be east out into outer 
darkness— there shall he weeping and gnashing of teeth.'' 
Do you think, my friends, that it is but " a figment of my 
own brain," when I say that if the "kingdom" means 

heaven," the wicked must enter heaven ? 

But we have more of the same sort : Matt. 13 : 47 — - 
" Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was 
cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind." Does heaven 
M gather of every kind ?" Then it must gather some of the 
" wicked! " 

Matt. 21 : 43 — " Therefore say I unto you, the kingdom 
of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bring- 
ing forth the fruits thereof." Was heaven taken from the 
Jews, and given to the Gentiles ? 

Matt. 22: 11 — " And when the king came in to see the 
guests (into his kingdom), he saw there a man which had 
not on a wedding garment ; and he saith unto him : 4 Friend, 
how earnest thou in hither, not having on a wedding gar- 
ment?' And he was speechless! Then said the king to 
the servants; 4 Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, 
and cast him into outer darkness— there shall be weeping and 



ENDLESS FUNIS H MEN T 



269 



gnashing of teeth." I suppose this fellow had got into 
heaven without being immersed — he had probably gone there 
by land ! At any rate, there he was, in heaven, and without 
the proper garment, if by " kingdom " we are to understand 
heaven, as my friend contends ! 

I might go on arid read a number more passages of the 
same import; but these are enough to show you that my 
opponent's proof-texts have nothing to do with heaven and 
the future state. And this he has got to admit, or admit that 
" the wicked " go to heaven ; or else come up to the work 
and tell us how they can be " cast out," without first getting 
in there! 1 leave this part of the subject row, till I hear 
what he may have to say on it. 

My friend tries to make some capital out of the fact that I 
admitted the conditionally of certain texts which he quoted 
in his previous speech ! He should not be too hasty in this 
matter. He must recollect that there is a slight difference 
between us in regard to the application of those texts. While 
he applies them to the future state, X am very well satisfied 
that they have no such application, but refer to things in this 
world. The words " treasure in heaven " are used in an ac- 
commodated sense. The Savior exhorted his disciples not 
to lay up treasures in this world, where moth and rust cor- 
rupt, and where thieves break through and steal ; " but lay 
up for yourselves treasures in heaven "-—that is, place your 
affections upon " things above, where Christ sitteth oil the 
right hand of God." Or, in the language of Paul to Timo- 
thy, (1 Tim. 6 : 17-19) " Charge them that are rich in this 
world, that they be not high-minded, nor trust in uncertain 
riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things 
to enjoy ; that they do good — that they be rich in good works, 
ready to distribute, willing to communicate; laying up in 
store for themselves a good foundation against the time to 
come, that they may lay hold on eternal lite." This is the 
treasure they were commanded to lay up in heaven; "be 
rich in good works " — kind and benevolent to others, " ready 
to distribute, " and thus " lay up in store for themselves a 
good foundation against the time to come," that they may 
lay hold on eternal life. Mr. Franklin will probably tell you 
that this " time to come," means the judgment day, in eter- 
nity ! But if he does so, he will do it on his own responsi- 



270 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



bility ; the apostle had no such allusion; he simply meant 
that by so doing they would lay up for themselves a good 
foundation against a time ef necessity — -in all probability al- 
luding to that "time of trouble " which was soon to come 
upon the Jewish nation,— a time, such as never was before 
since the world began, and never shall be again- — when the 
44 kingdom " was to be taken from the Jews and given to 
another nation, and all who had not 4 * laid up treasures in 
heaven," and had pot on 44 the wedding garment "—in other 
words, who had not " laid up in store for themselves a good 
foundation," were to be cast out into outer darkness! 
Whenever my friend carries these texts to scenes in the fu- 
ture state of existence, he betrays unpardonable ignorance, 
and does violence to the plainest passages in the Bible ! I 
hope he will keep calm, and not allow his fears to get the 
better of his judgment ! 

It seems that 1 did not say enough on the passage in Rom. 
2: 7, to suit my friend. I asked him to tell us whether 
44 immortality beyond the grave can be had by seeking for it." 
Did you notice his answer? He tried to evade it as much 
as possible, but finally said " this immortality can be had by 
seeking for it." You see he did not answer the question. 
He left himself a loop hole" to slip out at ! 1 knew he 
would not answer the question ; for if he had said i% yes," 
then it would follow that none would ever be immortal but 
those who seek for it; and consequently he would have to 
admit that the wicked would be annihilated, and this would 
also annihilate his endless punishment! And if he should 
answer in the negative, then the text would do him no good, 
for * 4 glory, honor, and eternal life" can be enjoyed in this 
world. But what is ** this immortality ? " Ah, that is the 
question ! 

1 will now show you, my friends, that this text is most 
shamefully perverted, not only by Mr. Franklin, but by oth- 
ers ; for it is in the mouth of every babbling opposer of Uni- 
versalism from Maine to Mississippi; and always quoted to 
prove that 44 glory, honor, and immortality" beyond the 
grave, are only to be obtained by being sought for ! I tell 
you, my friends, and I tell Mr. Franklin, that the word "im- 
mortality" is a wrong translation, and that the apostle had 
no more allusion by the word aphtarsian, to immortality be- 



E>~ BLESS PUNISHMENT. 



271 



vend the grave, than he had to the man in the moon, to use 
my friend's expression ! True, this word may mean im~ 
mortality, but it is only by implication ; that is not its primi- 
tive meaning. In Eph. 6 : 24, we read, 44 Grace be with all 
them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. 2 ' Here 
the word si sincerity " is aphtharsia in the original, the same 
word that is rendered 44 immortality " in Rom. 2 : 7. Again ; 
Titus 2 : 7, "In all things showing thyself a pattern of good 
works; in doctrine showing uncorruptness, gravity, sinceri- 
ty." Here also the word sincerity is from the same in the 
original. The word 44 uncorruptness " is from adiaphthoria, 
a branch of the same root, which is rendered by Greenfield, 
44 incorruptness, genuineness, pureness." The original word 
rendered immortality, would be much better represented by 
* 4 sincerity," 44 purity," or 44 uncorruptness of character," 
meaning a certain moral qualification, to be attained in this 
life. The plain, simple meaning of the passage is this : 
44 Who by patient continuance in well doing, seek for glory, 
honor, sincerity, or purity of character, shall enjoy eternal 
life." 

My iriend asks me in turn, 44 Can any person by seeking 
for it, obtain this glory, honor, immortality and eternal life, 
in this world I " 1 tell him, most emphatically, yes ! They 
are to be sought for, and obtained here, and here only. What 
is 44 eternal life 1 " The knowledge of God and of his Son 
Jesus Christ; the hope and life of the gospel, the boon of 
the christian while lie sojourns on earth. 1 hope we shall 
hear no more about seeking for immortality ! This is some- 
thing, my friends, that is not to be obtained by seeking for 
it; it depends upon a higher source. 

I cannot consent, my hearers, to follow my opponent in 
all his quibbles upon points that, are so foreign to the question 
at issue as most of his last speech is. He seems to forget 
that he has the affirmative of the question, and that it is his 
duty to prove, if he can, the doctrine of endless punishment. 
Why does he not come up to the point at once, and not con- 
tinue to shy off, and beat round, spending his time talking 
about irrelevant subjects. I know that the Revelator says 
that 44 He that overcometh the same shall be clothed in white 
raiment," and his name shall remain in 44 the book of life," 
and I believe what he says. But I cannot stop here and go 



212 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION, 



into an argument with my friend about what is meant by "the 
book of life," or the 44 white raiment," or where this all was 
to take place ! Such questions might be interesting enough 
on other occasions, but they are entirely out of place here. 
The same may be said of other passages he has quoted. I 
believe all that thesQ passages say; but until he shows how, 
or in what way they teach endless punishment, I shall pay 
but little or no attention to them. I call on him again to 
come up to the work, and let us hear some of his *' strong 
reasons," if he has got any ! 

But perhaps I should not insist here ; is is very difficult to 
44 accomplish an impossibility," or to prove a proposition 
without evidence ! I hope, my friends, that you will not 
expect too much of my opponent in his present position ; he 
is probably doing the best he can. He has a hard task to 
perform, and you must not be surprised if he should fail. 
When the Bible says 44 God will have all men to be saved, 
and come to a knowledge of the truth," do you expect my 
friend to prove that God will not have all men to be saved ? 
And when it is declared that 44 the Lord will not cast off for- 
ever," do you suppose he can prove that the Lord will cast 
off forever ! When the Lord says, 44 1 will not contend for- 
ever, nor be always wroth," you must not expect my friend 
to prove that the Lord will contend forever and always be 
wroth. This would be expecting too much ! Paul says, 
64 Death, the last enemy, shall be destroyed." You must not 
expect him therefore to prove the doctrine of an endless 
death — a death that shall never be destroyed ! When the 
Psalmist says that 44 all the ends of the world shall remem- 
ber and turn unto the Lord, and all the kindreds of the na- 
tions shall worship before him "—it should not be expected 
of my friend to prove that a part will remember and turn 
into hell, and suffer there endlessly! The Almighty de- 
clares that in the seed of Abraham, which is Christ, all the 
s4 nations, families, and kindreds of the earth shall be bless- 
ed," you must not expect, therefore, that my friend is going 
to "show that a part of mankind will be eternally cursed with 
an endless punishment 1 The apostle declares that 64 God is 
love," and the Psalmist, that 44 he is good unto all, and his 
tender mercies are over all his works," — consequently you 
expect too much, ]1 you think that my friend, Mr. Franklin, 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT, 



273 



in view of these plain and positive declarations, is going to 
prove to you that God is hatred, and that he is not good unto 
all. but that he will inflict an endless curse upon a part of his 
children! No, no, my friends ; if you expect all this, you 
expect what no man under heavens can do ! " He knows 
that he must make a most manifest failure, if he undertakes 
to do this," and therefore he spends his time in playing 
around the question, and talking about matters that have but 
little or no bearing on the point at issue. Well, well, you 
see how it is ; we must not expect too much of our friend : "I 
do no* think hard of him, as he can do no better." 

He does but little better when he comes to notice my ob- 
jections to his doctrine. My first objection is that "it makes 
God the author of infinite evil." But he says, " Not at all!" 
and then tries to place me in as bad a fix as he is himself, 
because I believe that improving or neglecting our talents in 
this world, will have some effect on our characters and men- 
tal capacities in the future world ! What has this to do with 
endless punishment? It is very rational to suppose that 
there will be difference of character in the future state, and 
degrees in happiness, according to the improvements and 
moral attainments acquired in this life; but all will be happy 
according to their capacity for enjoying; all will be in heaven, 
and still progressing, higher and higher, in the scale of moral 
excellence. There is no evil in this — much less an infinite 
evil ! But how is it on the other hand ? My friend's doc- 
trine consigns a part of mankind to absolute misery! They 
are to be shut up in hell, there to suffer the most excrucia- 
ting torture which almighty vengeance can inflict or infinite 
malignity can devise ! Is not this an evil? And when we 
are told that their suffering is to be perpetual — no hope, no 
escape, no mitigation, no repentance, no mercy, no chance 
for improvement, no redemption — their condition fixed, irre- 
vocably, unalterably, and endlessly fixed — may we not call 
it an infinite evil ? Now, who is the cause of this evil ? It 
will not answer to say that man is the author of sin, and 
therefore the author of this evil. This will not do. God 
made man ; and if he made a law, and annexed an infinite 
evil as the penalty of that law, then he is the author of this 
evil. I care not whether he foresaw the consequences, or 
not ; God is the author of every thing ; he made man, and 
18 



274 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



he made the law, and the penalty ; and if they result in an 
infinite, absolute, and ultimate evil, then he is the author of 
it ! I charge this doctrine, therefore, with making God the 
author of an infinite evil ; and if the doctrine he true, then I 
charge God with being the author of an infinite evil ! and 
angels and the blessed in heaven will charge him with being 
the author of an infinite evil ! And the damned in hell, in 
every groan they send up from the vaults of thei r fiery prison 
throughout the wasteless ages of eternity, will charge him, 
and justly charge him, with being the author of an infinite 
evil! 

All my friend says on my second objection comes very 
wide of the mark. What if God is the author of all evil — 
or what we call evil ; and that he will not allow the guilty to 
go unpunished— so this evil is to be overruled for good, and 
this punishment comes to an end, how can it "impeach some 
of the glorious attributes of the Deity ?*' Universalists do not 
believe in such a thing as an ultimate evil; all evil, all punish- 
ment, in our system, is but a means to some good end: we may 
not be able to see how it is, because we cannot seethe end; but 
God can see it; and God being good and wise, we have a 
right to conclude that he would not permit temporary evil, 
unless it is finally to eventuate in good : more good than 
could otherwise result. But not so with endless punishment. 
That is an end — an ultimate end ; there is no afterwards to 
to it — no good to come out of it. It will not do to say that it 
is neqessary in order to secure the happiness of the saints in 
Heaven. I tell you, my friends, the happiness of all the 
saved from Adam down to the last soul that shall be "re- 
deemed by the blood of the Lamb, ,? will not compensate for 
the endless damnation of one soul, much less for the myriads 
that are to suffer that doom, according to my opponent's doc- 
trine ! The doctrine, then, of endless sin and suffering, I 
say impeaches some of the glorious attributes of the Deity. 
It impeaches his justice : for it were infinitely unjust for God 
to punish his creatures world without end, for the sins of this 
short life — and that, too, when there is no possible good to 
come of this punishment ! It is humiliating, and reflects 
upon the wisdom and power of God, to think that his system 
of government is to result in the endless ruin of a large ma- 
jority of his intelligent creatures; that the Devil is to get the 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT, 



276 



greater portion of them !-— therefore it impeaches these attri- 
butes. It impeaches the Goodness of the Deity; for surely 
no one will say that such a result can be in accordance with 
Infinite Goodness ! Impossible ! 

My friends, Mr. Franklin knows better than to talk as he 
does. Universalists don't say that " God threatens a sorer 
punishment than death without mercy, and then quibble 
round it, by saying that he only meant a little remorse of 
conscience." If famine, and pestilence, and war, and the 
horrible punishment of the Jews, when their city and nation 
were destroyed ; those people who had "trodden under foot 
the Son of God, and had counted the blood of the covenant" 
an "unholy thing:" is all this nothing but "a little remorse of 
conscience?" "He that despised Moses' law, died without 
mercy;" that is, there was no escape. Was not the punish- 
ment inflicted upon the wicked, rebellious Jews, of sufficient 
magnitude in comparison with this, to be called a " much 
sorer punishment ]" I should pity the man who could so 
trifle with his own judgment, and his reputation for sanity, 
as to say it was not ! Mr. Franklin knows that it was ; and 
he knows, too, that this is the very punishment the apostle 
alluded to by the "much sorer punishment. 1 ' " A little re- 
morse of conscience," indeed ! This is all gammon, my 
friends. But you can all understand why it is that my op- 
ponent prefers misrepresentation and ridicule, to argument. 
But I must not complain. 

My friend complains because I call his punishment " tor- 
ture" and " misery." I want to know what burning and 
roasting in an orthodox hell is, but torture and misery ! It 
is not punishment — the punishment of the Bible ; and that 
is the reason I don't call it punishment, nor chastisement ! 

He does not attempt to remove my third objection — that 
" endless punishment can do no good ;" but tries to ridicule 
the idea of my hell doing any good ! It is none of his busi- 
ness whether my hell does any good or not; that is not the 
question. Let him show how his hell — endless punishment, 
can do any good, and then I will attend to him. 

In reply to my fourth objection, he says "divine justice 
will inflict that punishment which he has threatened, and be 
satisfied all the time." You recollect that I said divine 
justice could never be satisfied, according to this doctrine; but 



216 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



Mr. Franklin says it will "be satisfied all the time!" I won- 
der if the man knows what is meant by justice being satis- 
fied ? When justice is satisfied, punishment must cease, as 
a matter of course. But as this punishment is to be endless, 
I repeat, justice can never be satisfied ! It is nonsense to 
say it wili be satisfied all the time ! I admit, it will be all 
the time satisfying, but it will never be satisfied. Conse- 
quently, I believe the doctrine is false. 

My fifth objection, that "the doctrine of endless punish- 
ment does violence to man's reason, and the better part of 
his nature," the gentleman passes, by simply remarking that 
"it simply strikes me in that way." Well, this is probably 
the best he could say. 

I objected in the next place, that, according to my friend's 
doctrine, "very few would be saved." lie tries to get round 
this by saying that my doctrine does not help the matter any. 
He does not know, he says, that I have any saved from my 
hell ! He must recollect that they may pass through my hell 
and be saved in Heaven afterwards. All sin, more or less, 
and all suffer, more or less, in my hell ; yet all will finally 
be saved — not from hell, of course, but from sin, mortality, 
and death ; but there is no afterwards to his hell — no re- 
demption. So you see there is quite a difference between us; 
and I leave it to you to decide whieh of us has the best hell ! 

My hearers, in view of this doctrine of endless torture 
you m^y fear God, and you may tremble in dread of his anger, 
and you may repent and pray — but you cannot love him !— 
You may jancy you love him, and you may flatter your- 
selves into the idea that you really do love him ; but it is all 
imaginary. There is no loveliness in a Being that can deal 
thus w T ith creatures ; and without we see something lovely in 
the character of our Heavenly Father, it is impossible to 
love him. I could not love such a Being if I would ; and 1 
tell you more, I would not if I could. The character whieh 
ihis doctrine ascribes to the Almighty renders him unworthy 
the love of a single intelligent creature ! 

My eighth objection is, that this doctrine " represents God 
as acting contrary to his law;" that is, to "return good for 
evil." My friend thinks that a hell in this world, then, 
w T ould also be contrary to his law. But he must recollect 
that although God punishes us here for our sins, he does not 



ENULES3 PUNISHMENT. 



277 



inflict any more punishment than is for our good— than is 
necessary to a good end ; and that all his chastisements are 
directed by infinite love. But we cannot say this in view of 
endless punishment; that cannot be "overcome with good;" 
for there is no afterwards to it ! He says, " to punish a 
man in this world for sin, is certainly contrary to the princi- 
ple, 'overcome evil with good,' if future punishment would 
be." My friends I have not said anything about future pun- 
ishment. I care not whether the punishment be in this 
world or the future, so that it is limited and results in good, 
But the question is endless punishment; and the gentleman 
is not going to escape the force of my argument by talking 
about "future punishment !" Let that be remembered. 

My ninth objection is that this doctrine is a contradiction 
of the scriptures. My friend, instead of paying any attention 
to it, undertakes to show that Universalism also contradicts the 
the scriptures, by quoting a number of texts of doubtful mean- 
ing, and then says Universalism denies them! This is a sin- 
gular way to answer an objection! I am astonished that the 
gentleman should again introduce 2 Tim. iv. 1 — "who shall 
judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his king- 
dom," after what was said on that passage when we were on 
the first proposition! Has he forgot the defeat he met with 
then? I showed clearly — in fact the passage declares it — 
that this judging the quick and the dead was to take place at 
Christ's appearing in his kingdom; and that, as I have showed, 
has long since been accomplished. 

He quotes Heb. ix. 27 — ^ *4t is appointed unto men once to 
die, but after this the judgment," but as we are not discussing 
the subject of judgment, this text is not to the point. I take 
a very different view of it, I presume, from the gentleman, but 
I cannot stop here to give it. 

He also refers to the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, 
and to Matth. xxv. 46 — "and these shall go away into ever- 
lasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal," Let 
him introduce those passages as proof texts, and say that he 
relies on them as such, and he will find me ready to attend 
to him. Otherwise 1 shall take no notice of them. 

If any doctrine under heaven is calculated to "make the 
heart of the righteous sad," it is the doctrine of endless pun- 
ishment! They are (those who believe it) "all their lifetime 



£78 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



subject to bondage/' from a fear that they may have to endure 
it ; and though they may escape it themselves, they know 
that some of their friends must suffer it if it be true. And 
what is better calculated to '•strengthen the hands of the 
wicked that he should not return from his evil way by promis- 
ing him life," than to tell him that "sin is pleasant — there is 
no punishment in this world — and that he may live in the 
pleasant enjoyment of sin all his days, so he just repent and 
be baptized a few hours before he dies—he will then escape 
all punishment and go straight to heaven." This text in Ezek= 
xiii. 22, is an unfortunate text for my friend, and 1 am very 
much astonished that he should refer to it ! 

He next quotes Rev. xxi. 8, and xx. 12, where certain char- 
acters were "cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, which 
is the second death." The gentleman, I suppose, under- 
stands this all literally, and although it has nothing to do with 
the question in debate, I will say a few words about this "lake of 
fire and brimstone," lest he should think 1 am afraid of it! 
In Rev. xix. 20, we read, "and the beast was taken, and with him 
the false prophet that wrought miracles hefore him, with which 
he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, 
and them that worshipped his image. They both were cast 
alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. And the 
remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the 
horse: * * and all the fowls were filled with their flesh." 
Is this to be in the eternal world? Again, "the beast that 
thou sawest, was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the 
bottomless pit, and go into perdition, [is not this bottomless 
pit the "lake of fire and brimstone ? n ] and they that dwell 
on the earth shall wander (whose names were not written 
in the book of life, &c.,) when they beheld the beast that was, 
and is not, and yet is." — Rev. xvii. 8. So those that dwell on 
the earth were to see all this. Does this prove endless pun- 
ishment? But again, Rev. xx. 14, "and death and hell were 
cast into the lake of fire, this is the second death." Will my 
friend tell us whether death and hell are to suffer endless 
punishment? If not, then neither are the beast, and the false 
prophet, and other wicked characters that were to be cast into 
the lake- of fire and brimstone. Please recollect this. 

I will now proceed to offer some more objections to this 
doctrine. As Mr. Franklin does not seem disposed to pro- 



279 



ceed with the affirmative, I can do no better than to fill up 
my time by presenting what i conceiye to be objections to the 
doctrine- He has not given us a single proof text in his last! 
I hope he will do better in his next. 

My tenth objection is that the doctrine of endless punish- 
ment makes the devil, every way, a greater being than God ! 
1 know it. is generally believed that God is the wisest and most 
powerful being in the universe, and the scriptures say that he 
shall finally be **all in all," and that "the devil and all his 
works shall be destroyed;'*— btit if this' doctrine be true, the 
devil will get far the largest portion of manknd, and will live 
and torment them as long as God himself shall endure ! God 
and the devil are opposed to each other : the one is seeking 
the salvation [of mankind, the other his "eternal ruin. Now 
1 ask. if the devil succeds in getting four-fifths or more of 
thern into hell, whether he will not prove to be more powerful 
than God.' | Tune expired .1 



MR. Fit AN KLIN'S THIRD SPEECH. 



Gentleman Moderators: 

My friend. Mr. Man ford, seems unwilling to own that 
he was angry ; but if he uses such language as that con- 
tained in his speech before his last, when he is in a good hu- 
mor, it makes the matter still worse for him. But he 
used some strange language in his last speech for a man in 
good humor. I am by no means jesting, but say what I 
think, and what many others think. But if he will he in a 
good humor in time to come, w r e will look over it. 

He is still in trouble about my dividing and subdividing my 
proposition, I never knew before, that it was an offence 
to divide a proposition into three heads. I thought my 
opponent had debated the question before us, so frequently, 



280 



THEOLOGICAL D 1 SC SSI ON 



that he was prepared for any course one could pursue ; 
but it appears that throwing the proposition into three simple 
heads or propositions, has thrown him into such a perTect 
confusion, that he is almost ready to declare that he will not 
debate at all. Indeed, he has threatened repeatedly, that he 
will not reply to my arguments. Well, that is just what 
I expected ; I knew that he could not reply, and of course 
that he would not. I am not so unreasonable as to want him 
to do what I know he cannot. If he were to advance 
any thing that I could not reply to, perhaps I would not try. 

He appears now to be satisfied that the wicked will be 
punished after death, and the only point now upon which he 
seems concerned, is the duration of that punishment ; and 
consequently, he says, 44 1 shall continue to urge upon 
him the necessity of coming up to this point, and shall 
pay but little or no attention to any thing he says." 

The gentleman argued in his speech before the last, 
that the doctrine of endless punishment could not be 
true, as so great a portion of the world do not know 
it. In reply, I said that Universalism could not then, be true, 
for a much greater portion of the world did not know 
anything about it. In his last speech, he comes forward, 
and replies to his own argument, by asking, with an air 
of triumph, 44 How many, I ask, believe in Campbell ism. or 
know anything about it?" It is no difference to me how 
many or how few, for I admit that the argument has no 
force in it ; but I simply used it to show that, if the argument 
was good, it would disprove his own doctrine. But he 
proceeds to say, that 44 if so awful a doctrine as endless pun- 
ishment be true, then the world ought to know it, that 
they might have a chance to avoid it; but the fact that but a 
small portion of mankind know anything about it, even if it 
be true, is pretty good evidence that it is false." I say then, 
if this logic be worth anything, the i 4 fact that but a small 
portion of mankind know anything about 7 ' Universalism, 
e4 is pretty good evidence that it is false." If the logic 
is good in one case, it is m the other. 44 For," he says, 
44 Our Heavenly Father would not be likely to place his chil- 
dren in such iminent danger — where their eternal inter- 
ests are at stake — without giving them warning of it, in 
a manner, too, not to be misunderstood." But has not 



E1M JDLESS punishmkm t , 



281 



God given just such warning ? Our Lord speaks of eternal 
punishment and eternal damnation, and if he is not warned 
by it, the reason must be that he does not believe the Lord's 
language. 

But he now allows that none ought to know it, if there is to 
be another punishment, but that it is not so important 
to know of the hell of which he speaks, for men pass through 
his hell, but cannot go through an endless hell. That is just 
what we have been telling Universalists, all the time ; that if 
a man is once convinced that there is no hell, only something 
that he will pass through in this life, he will then think, it 
is of but little importance whether he knows anything about 
it or not, for if he gets into hell, he will get out again. But 
I did not expect the gentleman to own right out, as he did in 
his last speech, that it is so much more important to the world 
to know our doctrine, if it be true, than it is to know his doc- 
trine, if it be true. In this, he has as good as conceded that 
if Ins doctrine bo true, it is not material whether you know 
it or not. In this, he will find very many who will agree 
with him. My friend says, " if it is true, it would be better 
for the world, if every body was acquainted with Universal- 
ism, and believed in it : but then there is not so much, noth- 
ing in fact, at stake, if Universalism be true, in comparison 
with what there is, if endless punishment be true." No, 
gentlemen, if your doctrine be true, there is 4i nothing in 
fact at stake," whether you know it or not. Do you 
think Paul would have preached and suffered as he did, 
to make known the gospel, if there was "nothing in fact, 
at stake," as my opponent now admits, is the case, if his 
doctrine be true I My Univcrsalian friends, you need not 
pay the gentleman for preaching, writing, and publishing his 
doctrine, for he now says "there is nothing in fact at stake," 
whether you know it or not, if the doctrine be true. But 
there is something great at stake, if it is not true, as he 
has now admitted. 

Mr. Man ford has gone through another lengthy argument, 
or rather, has gone over the same long argument again, 
to prove that the persons standing without the kingdom, and 
knocking at the door, crying, Lord, Lord, open unto us, 
were in the kingdom. Now, to make short of a long story, 
I would ask the gentleman the question : did Christ command 



262 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



his hearers to "strive to enter in at the strait gate,*' who 
were already in ? Did he say. to those already in the king- 
dom, "you will seek to enter in, and shall not be able V s 
Were they within, when the Lord said, they should "stand 
without I" He lias now given sufficient evidence that he 
does not believe this passage. Although the Lord said, they 
should strive to enter in, and should not be able, and stand 
without; he faces Jesus, and declares that they were in 
already. If he can prove thai persons whom Jesus rep- 
resents as "standing without," were actually within, he may 
prove his favorite position, that "all the wicked will be 
saved. 5 ' 

But how does he make out his proof? By quoting 
passages where the church is called the kingdom, but 1 deny 
that he meant the church in this passage, for the Master has 
never shut the door of the church, and persons have never 
strived to enter in and were not able. Nor have any 
ever been thrust away from the door of the church, who 
cried, Lord, Lord, open unto us. The church is sometimes 
called the kingdom, and sometimes kingdom means heaven 
itself, as in this passage, "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the 
kingdom of God." It is the gate of the kingdom that 
will be shut against all who do iniquity. The words "thrust 
out." as the original from which they come, simply mean, 
"thrust away." This passage then, stands in all its force 
against Universalism, alluding to the everlasting kingdom, 
which is notinheiited by flesh and blood, and into which those 
who do iniquity can never enter. He has made nothing in 
the shape of a reply on this point— indeed, he has scarcely 
made a genteel quibble. 

The gentleman now admits the condiiionality of those pas- 
sages, upon which I accused him of renouncing his doctrine 
in his former speech, but allows there is a shade of difference 
in our application of them. He allows they have no refer- 
ence to a future state. Well, let us consider briefly ; "Lay 
up treasure in heaven." Where does "in heaven " mean l 
Just a few words before he came to this passage, he stated 
that I admitted that "the wicked go to heaven." When he 
said this, I thought he meant some place besides this world : 
but now laying up treasure in heaven, has no reference 
to any other world than this ! ! I told the gentleman, in my 



ENDLESS VFlNloHMENT. 



283 



first speech, that I expected he would bring heaven into this 
world. But he says now, it means the same as "set your 
affections on things above." What a luminous divine ! But 
you will remember, he admits that the language is condi- 
tional. The condition is, if you "lay up treasure in heaven," 
vou will be rich in heaven, but my friend's doctrine is, 
that you shall have treasure in heaven, whether you lay it up 
or not. 

But "seek those things which are above,' 9 is also con- 
ditional. The condition is, if you seek you shall find. But 
the gentleman's doctrine is that you shall have those things 
above, whether you seek them or not. But to change it to 
suit his present quibble, the "things above," simply mean 
things on earth. But the things above, were where Chi ist sits 
on the right hand of God, If you want those things you 
must seek them. 

The gentleman seems greatly puzzled to know what to do 
with the good foundation against the time to come, but allows 
that it "in all probability, alluded to the time of trouble, 
which was soon to come upon the Jewish nation." That 
was a beautiful thought, truly ! It was an important item for 
the apostle, to have Timothy charge the rich men in the city 
of Ephesus, in Asia Minor, to be benevolent, &c, thus lay- 
ing up a good foundation against the destruction of Jerusa- 
lem, a city in the southern part of Palestine, some eight hun- 
dred or a thousand miles distant! ! What a clear and lucid 
exposition of scripture ! And, I suppose, they would lay 
hold on eternal life, in the city of Ephesus, when Jerusalem 
would be destroyed!! How plain all this is! Well, I 
declare ; I now think less of Universalism than ever. It 
represents the God of eternity, as encouraging christian men 
to good works, and promises them a good foundation against 
the time to come and eternal life, by which he means no bet- 
ter foundation or life, than they already had! Yet, my 
friend can talk long and loud about the character of God ! 

My friend makes quite an attempt at witticism on Rom. 2: 7, 
and allows that w^e will not hear much more on that passage; 
but in this he is mistaken. I saw nothing terrifying, or even 
new in all he said. But he is not pleased with the manner in 
which I answered the question, " can immortality be obtained 
by seeking for it ?" And why is he not pleased ? Simply 



284 



THfiOLOG IGAL DISCUSSION . 



because I did not answer in a way that would give him some 
capital. But did 1 not answer fairly ? We were talking of 
the immortality of Rom. 2 : 7, and 1 answered that it can be 
obtained by seeking for it. This he now admits, and sets off 
to show that it can be had in this world. And how does he 
do this ? Why, to be sure, the Greek word aphtharsia is in 
some other places translated sincerity ! But why did not he 
tell you that the same word is translated " incorruption," four 
times in the 15th chapter 1 Corinthians, where he has refer- 
red it to the future state a thousand times I I know exactly 
the quibble the gentleman intended to make, and conse- 
quently answered him, that " the " immortality spoken of 
here could be obtained by seeking for it ; and he now grants 
this, and as the Greek word aphtharsia is used in the very 
same sense here, it is 1 Cor. 15 : 4t, 50, 53, 54, and as he 
admits it to refer to the future world in the latter places? he 
cannot avoid it in the former passage. 

I deny the propriety of the gentleman's translation of the 
word in question, in Rem. 2 : 7. A man may be sincere, but 
there is no propriety in enjoining it upon him to seek sinceri- 
ty. You might as well talk about seeking honesty, seeking 
candor, &c, as seeking sincerity. You cannot find a trans- 
lator of any note in the world that will bear you out, in 
translating that word, in that passage, sincerity. But, as 1 
said before, the Avord is used in the same sense as in 1 Cor. 
15, and as the gentleman always refers it to the future world 
in the latter place, he is bound to in the former. I cannot 
say of him, as he did of me, that he always leaves a fc * loop 
hole " to slip out at, for he has not left himself even a '"loop 
hole " to slip out at. When a man will try to explain away 
immortality so as to be something in this world, for the sake 
of getting clear of hell, I confess that he is more easily 
alarmed by the smell of brimstone than most men ! 

In my last speech, I admonished my Universalian friends 
not to expect too much of Mr. Man ford ; and presented a few 
plain points which I knew he could not answer; and the gen- 
tleman was so struck with the force of them, that he made 
not the slightest effort to answer them, but adopted the same 
plan of argument, to see if he could not confound me in the 
same way. But in the place of adopting his plan, in slip- 
ping by without noticing my proof-texts, I shall take those 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 



285 



alluded to by him, and examine them one by one. He says, 
1. 44 When the Bible says. 4 God will have all men to be 
saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth/ do you ex- 
pect him to prove that God will not have all men to be saved?" 
But there is not an intimation in this passage that it means 
future salvation. Not only so, but it simply expresses the 
willingness of God that all men should be saved. It is the 
will of God that all men should be Christians ; or as ex- 
pressed in the 8th verse of the same chapter, it is the will of 
God that men should pray every where ; yet all men are not 
christians, and all men do not pray. 

2. The next passage is, 44 the Lord will not cast off for- 
ever." Sam. 3 : 31. I should like to hear the gentleman 
tell how long 44 forever " is. If forever means only a little 
tohile, as he will be compelled to say before long. I don't see 
any force in the passage. It will simply be, 44 the Lord will 
not cast off a little while." But he is bound to apply the 
passage to the coming world, or it proves nothing for him ; 
for he admits that God does cast off forever, as far as this 
world is concerned. If, then, it be applied to the eternal 
state, the passage implies that men will be cast off, but not 
forever. Thus you perceive that he cannot apply it to the 
coming state without giving up his doctrine. The expression 
evidently relates to the Jewish nation, over whom the prophet 
was lamenting, and who lias since been cast off as a nation, 
but are not to be cast off forever. But David did say to 
Solomon, 44 If thou seek him," (the Lord) 44 he will be found 
of thee : but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off for- 
ever ." 

3. 44 1 will not contend forever." Isa. 57: 16. How 
long is forever? The gentleman will tell you that it is only 
a Utile while* Well, then, the simple idea is, 44 1 will nut 
contend a little while.'' Is that the meaning of the passage? 
He will tell you no, but that it means, M I will not contend 
endlessly." Well, does it refer to the future state? He 
must say it does, or the argument is worth nothing; and if 
it does, then he has God contending with the wicked after 
death, and has therefore renounced his doctrine. But he is 
obliged to bring it into this world, and therefore it relates not 
to the question before us, 

4. " Death, the last enemy, shall be destroyed," 1 Cor. 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION, 



15: 26. When will "death, the last enemy, be "destroyed?" 
At the resurrection of the dead, responds every Universalist. 
Well, how will death be destroyed, at the resurrection of the 
dead? The apostle John answers : "And death and hell 
were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death." 
Rev. iO: 14. The gentleman, then, is right in saying that 
death shall be destroyed at the resurrection; for John had 
just spoken of the dead, small and great, standing before 
God, and being judged, and tells us of the destruction of 
death and hell, in the lake^)f fire. But what are the words 
that follow immediately after? "And whosoever was not 
found in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." 
Rev. 20: -14. Here, then, my friend finds death, hell, and 
those not in the book of life, at the resurrection of the dead, 
cast into the lake of fire, which is the second death. He 
may therefore bid a final farewell to Universalism. 

5. The gentleman also quoted the words: "All the ends 
of the world shall remember, and turn unto the Lord, and all 
the kindreds of the nations shall worship before him. Ps. 
22: 27. But as neither of us believe there will be any turn- 
ing unto the Lord in the world to come, we must find some 
place to apply the passage in this world, where people do 
turn unto the Lord. Any person who can find where God 
poured out of his spirit upon "all flesh" can easily find 
where the other nations, or the Gentiles, as well as the Jews, 
"remembered and turned to the Lord." 

6. My friend referred to the promise to Abraham, but 
forgot to tell you that Paul teaches that the promise is to be 
"given to them that believe ." Gal.- 3: 22. He would add, 
1 suppose, the words, and to them that eelieve not also. 
That is his doctrine, twist it as he may. 

7. My friend quotes, "God is love." Yes, "God is love;" 
not God will be love. In connection with this he quotes, 
"He is good unto all, and his tender mercies are over all his 
works." This also is in the present tense; and does not 
say that God will be good unto all, and that his tender- 
mercies will be over all. Well, if "God is love," "is 
good," and "his mercies are over all," what does all that 
prove? Why, Mr. M. says, that notwithstanding all his love 
and tender mercies, he punishes men in hell- — pours out 
upon them the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God, in this 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT . 



287 



world. Well, God is unchangeable; and if he is love, is 
good and merciful, as he certainly is, and yet has destroyed 
men with a flood, in the red sea, with fire and brimstone, as 
in the case of Sodom, I can see nothing to hinder the same 
love and goodness from punishing men forever. I do not, 
therefore, attempt to prove that God is not good, or that he 
is hatred, but that he can be good and merciful, and punish 
men at the same time. You do not therefore expect any too 
much of me, when you expect me to refute every one of 
my friend's arguments. That is just what I want you to 
expect of me, and I shall not beg off from it, as he did in his 
last speech, although he was the respondant, and bound to 
reply, or at least to try; but, as I said before, he cannot, and 
therefore his friends ought not to bo offended at him if he 
does not. 

The gentleman still keeps squirming under his statement 
in his first speech. He said, "I believe that by neglecting 
or improving our talents in this world, we may effect our fu- 
ture situation. " He wants to know now, if he does "he- 
lieve that improvtng or neglecting our talents in this world, 
will have some effect on our characters and mental capaci- 
ties in the future world ; what has this to do with endless 
punishment ?" I answer him again, as I did before, that it 
proves that a finite creature, in a finite state, can do some- 
thing that will effect an infinite state ; and if this neglect in 
this life can subject a man to some of the lower degrees of 
glory, when he first enters heaven, that this disadvantage at 
the start may keep him in the lower degrees perpetually and 
thus prove an infinite evil. In this he has yielded up the 
argument that a finite creature can no nothing that can effect 
an infinite state, in doing which he has given up the bottom 
corner stone of his whole edifice. To add to the strength of 
this, he now says, " it is very rational that there will be dif- 
ference of character in the future state, and degrees in hap- 
piness, according to the improvements and moral attainments 
acquired in this life." That is just what we have been tell- 
ing our Universalian friends all the time ; but we never 
could get them to own it before. They always denied that 
it was "rational" for the difference in character to follow 
men into the world to come. But Mr. M. now says, " it is 
very rational to suppose that there will be difference, of char- 



238 



THEOLOGICAL DISCISSION. 



acier in the future state. 9 ' Yes, and that difference is effect- 
ed by our conduct in this world, and even the resurrection 
does not change it ! and e\en Mr. Manford thinks it "very 
rational." Well, he is right; and it is equally rational to 
suppose that if his wicked character follows him into the fu- 
ture state, he must be saved in his sins or not saved at all, 
and if he does not believe in men being saved in their sins, 
it must be that they are not saved at all. My friend has thus 
virtually admitted that a man's character will follow him 
into the future state, and, if bad, prove an infinite evil, in 
depriving him everlastingly of that happiness which he might 
have attained to had he conducted himself right in this world. 

My friend says, "God is the Author of everything." But 
the Bible says of the devil, " he is a liar, and the father of 
lies." Here, then, is one thing of which God is not the 
father or the author. Our God is not the father of lies, the 
author of murder; but that the author of these abomina- 
tions, the gentleman has substantially asserted, in saying 
that "he is the author of everything." i was sorry to hear 
him manifest such a malicious spirit towards the Almighty 
Creator. He says, n if the doctrine be true, (the doctrine of 
endless punishmen,) then I charge God with being the au- 
thor of an infinite evil." You need not wonder if he should 
never be convinced, for he hates the doctrine of endless 
punishment, so that he >vill hate the Almighty God if he 
shall see fit to inflict it on any human being, and in his rage 
and bluster says: "If the doctrine be true, then I charge 
God with being the author of an infinite evil." You can 
now see how much confidence he has in the wisdom of God. 
Although he quotes God's word to you, when he thinks he 
can find a little scrap that he can twist into a proof of his 
doctrine, yet he would not believe a word in the Bible, or 
endorse its authority, if he should find that it decides against 
him ; but, on the contrary, "if this doctrine be true, then he 
charges God !" Yes, if the Almighty Jehovah shall dare 
punish any human being eternally, he declares that he will 
hate him forever, and charge him with being the author of 
an infinite evil : All that will be but a poor mitigation of the 
sufferings of hell, if he shall find himself one of its miser- 
able victims. He will find it "hard to kick against the goads." 

He says, of punishment, "w r e may not see how it is, be- 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT, 



289 



cause we cannot see the end ; but God can see it; and God, 
being good and wise, we have aright to conclude that he 
will not permit temporary evil, unless it is finally to eventu- 
ate in good./ He thus admits that " we may not be able to 
see " how the punishments God inflicts upon the wicked 
eventuate in good, yet he allows they do; and how does he 
prove it ? Why, because God is good and wise, and conse- 
quently could not do wrong, That sounds like he was coming 
to his senses That is all I ask relative to future pun- 
ishment. " We may not be able to see how it is, because 
we cannot see the end, but God can see it; and God, be- 
ing £ood and wise, we have a right to conclude tha-t 
he would not permit" endless punishment, "unless it is to 
eventuate in good." He is bound to say the same of some 
punishments which he admits. But he says, " God can see 
it." So I say of endless punishment; "God can see it:" 
and be it ever far from me to "charge God," because I am 
too ignorant to see all that he sees. 

The gentleman politely told you that it was none of my 
business whether his hell does any good or not. This is the 
way he talks when he is in a good humor, I suppose ! None 
of my business, I suppose, indeed I No matter what kind of 
nonsense he tries to impose on this people, I suppose! It is 
"none of your business !" Universalism is truly hard press- 
ed, when it brings forth such language from its defender as 
this! My business or not, I shall take upon me occasional- 
ly to allude to the restraining nature -of his hell. You might 
as well think to deter the tapster from his cups by telling 
him that his face would be red, as to think of deterring men 
from sin, by telling them that they are now in hell. 

The gentlemen says, "I care not whether the punishment 
be in this world or the future, so that it is limited in its dura- 
lion, and results in good." And just before he said this, he 
said, "my friends, I have not said anything about future 
punishment." How did this sound in your ears, after hear- 
ing him try so hard to prove that the Goming of Christ to 
judge the world was past ? Yes, on day before yesterday all 
judgment and all punishment was past ; but, now, he has 
said nothing about future punishment, and he does not care 
whether it is in this or the future world. Well, it is time 
I should confine myself more particularly to the duration of 
19 



290 



THEOLOGICAL DICUSSION* 



punishment , since he has come so near ad mining the rest of 
the question. 

1 now proceed to introduce Matt. 25: 46, in a formal manner 
to the attention of my friend, as he is so modest that he cannot 
give it any attention without a formal introduction. " And 
these shall go away into everlasting punishment; bui the 
righteous into life eternal." In this passage the words 
"■everlasting" and "eternal" are both from the same Greek 
word. That word is aionion. It is not used here to express 
the kind of punishment or life, but to express the duration 
of each. No one can deny that the life mentioned here is 
endless, and this word 'eternal' expresses its unlimited dura- 
tion. In the same sentence, then, from the lips of the same 
speaker, in reference to the came state, is the same word 
found to express the duration of the punishment of the dis- 
obedient, which is used to express the duration of the life 
of the righteous. I ask, then, by what rule of interpreta- 
tion, and by what kind of logic, does any man make this- 
word, used by the same speaker, in the same sentence, oj 
unlimited duration, when applied to the life of the righte- 
ous, but of limited duration when applied to the punishment 
of the wicked? Certainly by no rule or law of language, 
or anything else, only a determination to say it is so, be- 
cause it so. 

But I now call your attention to Greenfield's Greek lexi- 
con, and there find the first definition of the Greek word 
aionion to be unlimited as to duration, and the only two re- 
maining definitions are eternal and everlasting. That the 
word is defined right is proved by Paul, who kneAv what it 
does mean. In speaking of the priesthood of Christ, he says, 
"who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, 
but after the power of an endless life." Why does he call 
the life of which he is speaking endless? He answers in 
the very next words : "For he testifieth, Thou art a priest 
forever: 9 Heb. 7 : 16, 17, Paul calls the life of which he 
is speaking endless, because God said it was forever. In 2 
Cor. 14 : 18, he gives us another clue to the meaning of this 
word. He says, "the things which are seen are temporal ; 
but the things which are not seen are eternal." These tempo- 
ral punishments which are seen, are not the punishments the 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 



291 



Savior speaks of in my proof-text ; but the eternal punish- 
ment of which he speaks is not seen in this mortal state. — 
What does any man care for authorities, who, in the face 
of all this, will contend for a limited duration for the punish- 
ment of the wicked in the coming world, or no punishment 
at all, as is the case with some ? Such persons are proof 
against all authority, all reason, and all argument, and noth- 
ing will deliver them from the fearful delusion which has 
swallowed them up, but the revelation of the Lord Jesus, 
when ever tongue will be compelled to acknowledge the jus- 
tice of the ways of God. 

The gentleman can make but one ellbrt to avoid the force 
of this word ; and that will be to show that it has been ap- 
plied in a limited sense : but that can be done with any word 
in human speech. Even the word endless is used where it does 
not literally mean endless. Paul speaks of 44 endless genealo- 
gies," where all know that it must be used in a limited 
sense ; but he would be a most stupid critic who would refer 
to this passage to determine the meaning of the word end* 
less. Even the words perpetual and unlimited are frequent- 
ly used in a limited sense. The same is true of any word 
in human speech: and had 1 been given choice among all 
the words with which 1 am acquainted, I could not have 
found one more expressive of unlimited duration, than eter- 
nal and everlasting, or the Greek aionion from which they 
come. If there is then one word under Heaven that could 
prove my position, the word applied to the duration of pun- 
ishment by the Lord himself, will prove it. 

In looking over the single book of Revelations, you will rind 
the words for e ver anal ever to occur thirteen times. Of this 
number the expression is five times applied to the life of 
Christ, and the life of God, in the following manner : 44 Him 
that liveth forever and ever;" Once it is applied to the 
reign of the saints with Christ, as follows : " And they shall 
reign forever and ever.'' Three times this expression is 
applied to the praises of God as follows: 44 Blessing and 
glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honor, and power, 
and might, be unto our God, forever and ever." Once it 
is applied to the reign of Christ, as follows : 44 And he shall 
reign forever and ever." Now beyond all dispute, this ex- 
pression is applied to that which is of endless duration, in 



292 



THEOLOGICAL 



DISCUSSION. 



each of [the ten places to which I have referred, and the 
words forever and ever are used to express that duration* 
and can mean nothing else in those passages. 

Once this expression is applied to the beast and the false 
prophet, whom the Divine Spirit declared. " shall be tor- 
mented day and night, forever and ever.''' Another occur- 
rence of this expression you will find in the following : " And 
x after these things, I heard a great voice of much people in 
Heaven, saying, Allelluia; salvation, and glory, and honor, 
and power unto the Lord our God : for true and righteous 
are his judgments, for he hath judged the great whore, which 
did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hast avenged 
the blood of his servants at her hands. Again they said, 
Allelluia: and her smoke rose up forever and ever.''* This 
expression also occurs at the close of the following wonder- 
ful language of the Holy Book: " The same shall drink of 
the wine of the wrath of God: which is poured out without 
mixture into the cup of his indignation ; and he shall be tor- 
mented with tire and brimstone in the presence of the holy 
angels, and in presence of the Lamb ; and the smoke of their 
torment ascended forever and even" 

Now when we read of k ' Him that liveth forever and ever," 
no one doubts but the import is, " Him whose lite is of un- 
limited duration." When the same expression is applied to 
the praises of God, and to the reign of the saints with Christ, 
no one doubts but it expresses perpetual duration. 1 ask 
then, in the name of all reason, and in view of the grand so- 
- lemnities of the Book concerning which I speak, after admit- 
mg that this expression means unlimited, in ten places out of 
the only thirteen which it has in this book, by what authority 
does any man say, that the other three occurrencies have a 
different signification ? Certainly nothing was ever more ar= 
bitrary, than to admit the unlimited duration, expressed by 
this phrase in ten places, and then, in the same book, from the 
same pen, deny the same duration as expressed by the same 
words. No one but a most perfect tyrant, could thus force 
and torture the same words, from the pen of the same writer, 
in the same book, in reference to the same state, to mean of 
unlimited duration in ten places, and to mean of limited 
duration in the remaining three ; when no such thing is im- 
plied in the text or context, either prefixed or affixed. 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT, 



293 



Now, I ask the gentleman, what language the Almighty 
could have used, that would express endless punishment, if 
that which I have produced does not ? If men may be in 
"danger of eternal damnation," "go into everlasting punish- 
ment," and be " tormented day and night forever and ever," 
" where the worm dieth not and and the fire is not quenched," 
and not suffer endless punishment ; then, indeed, there is no 
language under Heaven that can prove endless punishment. 

The gentleman has expressed a great desire to get into the 
merits of the question, touching the duration of punishment ; 
but I expect to see him now ramble all over the creation, 
and have more to say about every thing else than the passages 
I have introduced. Will he refer to any lexicons to get the 
definitions of the words I have relied upon ? We shall see. 
But you need not expect him to be convinced, for he now de- 
clares, that if my position is true, God is the author of infi- 
nite evil, he charges it upon God, and he now says, "I 
could not love such a being if I would, and I tell you more, 
I would not if I could." Convince such a man ! In the sa- 
cred name of reason, how would you convince him '] He 
would despise the Almighty Jehovah, should he be compelled 
to admit that he decides against him ; and if he should find 
he is mistaken, he decides now, that he will hate God for= 
ever. This shows how much regard he has for the wisdom 
of God. [ Time expired.'] 



294 



THEOLOGICAL DIStJTSSION. 



MR. MAN FORD'S THIRD SPEECH. 



My Friends : 

Mr. Franklin commences his last speech with his old song, 
about my being angry, or in a bad humor! The gentleman 
has made himself extremely ridiculous on this subject ; in- 
deed he is quite childish!— and one would think that he ought, 
by this time, to be ashamed of himself! but no; like some 
little boy who is determined to have the last word — "if you 
were not angry, you acted like you w 7 ere — if you were in a 
good humor, I should hate to see you in a bad humor !" It 
must be apparent to you all, my friends, that he resorts to 
this course, when he has nothing else to say — a kind of hobby, 
when he finds himself used up. You may set it down as a 
matter of fact then, that whenever he gets to talking about my 
being angry, he is in a bad predicament, and don't know what 
else to say ! 

My friends, I am in no trouble about "dividing or subdivid- 
ing the proposition." We agreed to debate a certain propo- 
sition, viz: endless punishment; and he may "divide and 
subdivide," and raise as many other questions as he pleases, 
one thing is certain, he cannot draw me away from the ques- 
tion I agreed to discuss. He may take whatever course he 
pleases; all I have to say is — I shall not reply to any thing 
that does not bear directly upon the proposition. 

He misrepresents me, and says that which he knows to be 
false, when he says that I " appear to be satisfied that the 
wicked will be punished after death." He knows I believe in 
no such thing ! But punishment after death is not the ques- 
tion between us, and therefore I do not choose to discuss it. 

He is guilty of an equally base and wilful misrepresentation, 
when he represents me as saying there is "nothing at stake," 
if Universalism be true ! I said, and I say again, that there 
is nothing at stake if Universalism be true, in comparison 
with what there is at stake, if endless punishment be true.— 
And there being so much at stake—indeed a whole eternity— 
if the latter doctrine be true, I argued that it could not be 



EN BLESS PTTNISHMENT, 



295 



true, from the fact that but a small portion of the world knows 
any thing about it. Such a palpable misrepresentation does 
not speak very well either for a man's head or heart! 

But he says, "God has given just such warning"— "Our Lord 
speaks of eternal punishment, and eternal damnation." True 
enough ; and now admitting, for the sake of the argument, 
that the New Testament teaches the doctrine of endless pun- 
ishment, how many I ask, know anything about the New Tes- 
tament? — how many, in comparison with the whole world, 
know anything of the gospel ? Admit all the gentleman asks 
for, and it does not meet my argument, by a thousand miles ! 
So I repeat that if the doctrine of endless punishment were 
true, — a doctrine in which there would be so much at stake, 
God would have taken measures to have made the fact known 
to the world — to the whole world — and in a way too, that all 
would have known it long ago. The presumption is, there- 
fore, that the doctrine is not true ! 

Mr. Franklin still holds on to the idea that the "kingdom of 
God" means heaven! And although I showed positively in my 
last that if the "kingdom of God," and "kingdom of heaven," 
mean heaven, then the wicked go to heaven ; for we read of the 
wicked being "thrust out" of the "kingdom" — of gathering "out 
of his kingdom" things "that offend" — of "the children of the 
kingdom" being "cast out," and of "the kingdom of heaven" 
gathering of "every kind;" yet notwithstanding all this, he thinks 
i failed to prove the fact, because in the passage he quoted, the 
Savior speaks of their "standing without," and knocking at the 
door for entrance! Now in this very same passage, where they 
are represented as "standing without," (Luke xiii, 24 — 28) the 
Savior winds up by saying— "and you yourselves thrust out.' " 
Thrust out of what? Why out of the kingdom of God— con- 
sequently they must have been in the kingdom. 

But in regard to the other passages which I read, the gen- 
tleman allows they refer to the church. He says, "the church 
is sometimes called the kingdom, and sometimes kingdom 
means heaven itself, as in this passage — 'Flesh and blood 
cannot inherit the kingdom of God/ " True enough : in this 
passage, I admit that "kingdom of God" means heaven; and 
I now challenge Mr. Franklin to find another place in the New 
Testament where either "kingdom," "kingdom of heaven," 
or "kingdom of God," means the immortal state ! Let him 
do so if he can, or forever hold his peace, 



29P, 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



But he denies that this passage, (Luke xiii,) means the 
church, or kingdom on earth, "for," says he, "the Master has 
never shut to the door of the church." But was not the door 
"shut to" against the Jews? Let us enquire into this a little. 
In the 18th verse of this chapter the Savior saith : " Unto 
what is the kingdom of God like?" That "kingdom of God" 
and "kingdom of heaven" are synonymous here, is evident 
from the fact that in the parallel place in Matt, (xiii, 31) the 
latter phrase is used. The Savior proceeds : " It is like a 
grain of mustard seed, which a man took and cast into his 
garden; and it grew and waxed a great tree." Is heaven 
like a grain of mustard seed ? And did the Savior mean 
that it would "grow and wax a great tree?" "And again he 
said : whereunto shall I liken the kingdom of God? It is like 
leaven which a woman took and hid in three measures of 
meal, till the whole was leavened. Is heaven ' like leaven 
which a woman hid in three measures of meal?' Or does not 
the Savior here allude to the gospel kingdom, or kingdom of 
heaven on earth? Says Dr. Clarke, in speaking of these two 
parables of our Savior — "Both these parables are prophetic, 
and were intended to show, principally, how, from very small 
beginnings, the gospel of Christ should pervade all the nations 
of the world, and fill them with righteousness and true 
holiness." Now if the Savior does not in these two parables 
allude to the church, or kingdom of heaven on earth, then, all 
I have to say, is, there is no place in the Bible where " king- 
dom of heaven," or "kingdom of God," has such a meaning! 
But the Savior goes right on, and in the 24th verse tells them 
to "strive to enter" into this kingdom "at the strait gate" — 
lest, when the Master shall 'shut to the door,' they shall seek 
to enter, 4 and shall not be able.' And then in the 28th verse 
says: "There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth when 
ye shall see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, and all the proph- 
ets in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out." 
Now to whom does he allude here? I answer to the Jews. 
And were they not thrust out of the 'kingdom of God?' was 
it not 'shut' against them?— was it not taken from them and 
given to another nation? As Mr. Franklin may be disposed 
to reject Dr. Clarke's evidence, I will read you what Alexan- 
der Campbell says touching this matter. "When he visited 
Jerusalem the last time, and in the last parable pronounced to 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT, 



29t 



them, he told them plainly, ' the kingdom of God should be 
taken from them,' and given to a nation who should make a 
better use of the honors of the kingdom ; consequently, at 
that time, the Jews had the kingdom of God.)" (Chris. Rest. 
p. 169.) 

Was heaven taken -from the Jews ? And did the Jews at 
that time, have heaven? Mr. Franklin says the church, by 
which he means the " kingdom of heaven," has never been 
shut. I have proved that it was shut to the Jews But 
Mr. Campbell, in speaking of this same subject, (p. 166,) 
quotes this passage : "Alas! for- you Scribes and Pharisees! 
for you shut the kingdom of heaven against men, and 
will neither enter yourselves, nor permit others that would, to 
enter." So the kingdom of heaven, or church, was not only 
shut against the Jews, when they were "thrust out," and 
it was taken from them, but even the Scribes and Pharisees 
had power and used it, to shut it against men ! 

But to show you that the Savior meant the "Church" 
or kingdom of God on earth, in this passage, (Luke 13,) 
which Mr. Franklin denies, I will read some more from Mr. 
Campbell. In speaking of the "kingdom" on earth, and of 
the Savior's parables in reference to it, he says, (p. 164,) 
"sometimes he speaks of the administration of its affairs — of 
its king — of its territory — -of its progress — of various inci- 
dents in its history. Hence the parable of the sower — of the 
wheat and darnel — of the leaven — of the merchant seeking 
goodly pearls— of the grain of mustard seed," &c. Mr. 
Campbell, you see, mentions both of those parables which 
occur in connection with Mr. Franklin's proof-text, (Luke 
18,) of the "leaven," and the "mustard seed," and applies 
them to the kingdom on earth. So I have Dr. Clarke and the 
celebrated A. Campbell, both on my side. I could add more 
names to the list, if I thought it necessary. 

Now, it matters not whether those persons were in the 
kingdom or not, of whom Christ spoke, and who Mr. F. says 
were not in it, because they stood without ; I referred to 
other places to show that the "kingdom of heaven" and 
"kingdom of God," could not mean heaven, in those places, 
without involving the idea that there would be wicked men 
in heaven, an idea which no one admits. But he admits 
that in these places the church is meant, but contends 



298 



THEOLOGICAL DISCISSION. 



that "kingdom of God/ 9 in the passage under consideration 
means heaven. I have therefore confined myself to this 
passage alone, and have, by an appeal to it, and its immedi- 
ate connection, where the subject is introduced by the 
two parables — the "mustard seed," and the "leaven," shown 
conclusively and beyond refutation, that the "kingdom of 
God," in this place also means the church, or kingdom 
on earth. I have supported this position by Dr. Clarke and 
A. Campbell; and I presume there is not an eminent com- 
mentator or theologian extant, but would be found to coin- 
cide with the same view. I think I may, therefore say, that I 
have now, at any rate, taken the gentleman's proof-text 
entirely out of his hands; and in such a manner, too, that I 
flatter myself he will not try to regain it ! The passage has 
reference to the kingdom of God on earth — to the time 
when the Jews were "thrust out," and the "door shut to" 
against them ; it does not therefore apply to the future state, 
and consequently cannot render the gentleman the least 
particle of assistance whatever ! Wonder if he will say 
now that I have scarcely made a "genteel quibble." upon this 
passage ? 

In regard to those passages which I admitted to be condi- 
tional, but denied their application to the future life, it is not 
necessary that I should say much ; they were disposed of in 
my last. I said the "time to come," against which Timothy 
was to charge them to lay up "a good foundation," (1 Tim. 
4,) simply meant a time of necessity — and probably referred 
to the "time of trouble" shortly to come upon the Jewish na* 
tion. Mr. F. ridicules the idea that the people at Ephe- 
slis, could be in any danger from that event, because Ephesus 
was in Asia Minor, a great way from Jerusalem ! He should 
recollect, however, that there were plenty of Jews at Ephe- 
sus, as well as the other cities where churches were ostab= 
lished throughout Asia Minor. And the greatest trouble 
experienced by the christians, both at Ephesus and at other 
places, was from the Jews. The great danger was that 
the converts to Christianity would fall back to Judaism ; 
in which case, they would share in the fate of that nation, 
which was soon to come, not only on them at Jerusalem, but 
to a greater or less extent on all of that ill-fated people, 
throughout the world! When Jerusalem fell, the nation 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 



299 



fell, far and near; their greatness, their pride, their power, 
and glory — all was lost ! — the kingdom of heaven was taken 
from them, and they became a hissing and a by-word among 
all nations!" The fact that Ephesus was a great way from 
Jerusalem, was no reason why the Jews of that place, 
and those who should be led off from Christianity by them, 
should escape the "time of trouble" occasioned by the down- 
fall of the Jewish nation. But whether the apostle had 
reference to that time, or to some other "time to come," — one 
thing is very certain ; he meant nothing more than a time of 
necessity. The passage has no reference to the future 
state. 

But Mr. Franklin says he "thinks less of Universal ism 
now than ever." And why ? Simply, because we do not 
represent "the God of eternity" as encouraging men to 
"good works," by offering to reward them with heaven 
and immortality ! And has he just made that discovery ? It 
would be a fine idea indeed, for God to reward men with 
heaven and an eternity of happiness, simply for the few 
"good works" they do in this life ! — when in reality, they 
are doubly rewarded while here, for all the good they do, and 
indeed die in debt to the Almighty ! 

The gentleman does not like my criticism on Rom. 2: 7. 
I did not expect he would like it; but nevertheless, I main- 
tain that it is correct. I am aware that aphtharsia is applied 
by Paul, in 1 Cor. 15 : to the future life — being rendered in- 
corruption in the common version. But why did the apostle 
use athauasia to denote immortality, if aphtharsia has that 
meaning? So also in 1 Tim. 6: 16 — "Who only hath 
immortality" — the word is athauasia in the original. In no 
place in the Bible is aphtharsia rendered immortality, except 
Horn. 2:7. I admit that the proper signification of this 
word is incorruptibility, purity, soundness, &c, that is, when 
it is used to denote physical quality ; but when used as it is 
in Kom. 2: 7, to denote moral quality, it must then be under- 
stood in a moral sense, viz : purity, sincerity, or incorrupt- 
ness of character. In my last I gave you two instances 
where the word occurs, and is rendered "sincerity," and an- 
other where it is rendered " incorrup%ness," in reference 
to moral character. I then maintained that the word should 
be so rendered here— which I affirm to be. correct. It is just 



300 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION-. 



as proper to say, seek for "sincerity" — for an "unblemished," 
or "incorrupt character," as it is to say, seek for "glory," 
"honor," &c. But how does it sound to talk about seeking 
for immortality ? Mr. Franklin will not say that immortal- 
ity beyond the grave, is had by seeking for it ; he knows 
better ! 

But I pass to notice some of the more important points in 
the gentleman's last speech. He denies that God is the au- 
thor of everything, and to justify himself, quotes the passage 
" the devil is a liar and the father of it." Yes, but who is 
the father of the devil ? I would not charge God with being 
the author of lies, nor of the sin and wickedness committed 
in the world ; but stril I cannot deny the fact that he is, in 
some sense or other, the author of every thing, for he made 
man, who sins ; and if there be a devil, he either made him, 
or he is self-existent. God made everything that was made; 
and if the gentleman can reconcile the idea that God is not, 
either directly or indirectly, the author of every thing, with 
the fact that He is the self-existent, first cause of all causes, 
he will do me, and I presume a large portion of this audi- 
ence, a very great favor. If endless punishment be true, it 
will be an infinite evil ; and if the gentleman will show how 
an infinite evil can result from the government of God, and 
He not be the author of it, he will do himself and his cause 
a very great favor. It will not be sufficient to say, " the devil 
is the father of lies" and man is the author of sin ; and that 
therefore man is the author of his own punishment. God 
made man, and the devil, if he was made — and he made the 
law, and annexed the penalty ; and if the penalty be an in- 
finite evil, who is the author of it 1 

In regard to limited punishments, and what we call " tem- 
porary evil," I said that we may not be able to see how they 
are to eventuate in good, because we cannot see the end ; but 
God can see the end, and being good and wise, we have a 
right to conclude, a priori, that they will so eventuate. Mr. 
Franklin thinks this sounds like I was "coming to my senses!" 
Indeed ! And what shall I say of him ? He is either "coming 
to his senses," or becoming more crazy — and it is difficult to 
tell which! He says, "that is all he asks relative to future 
punishment/' Ah, future punishment, is it? I thought it 
was endless punishment ! But he tries, finally, to hitch an 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT, 



301 



endless punishment to my argument, and says, though "we 
cannot see the end, God can see it, and God being good and 
wise, we have a right to conclude that he would not permit 
6 endless punishment ' unless it is to eventuate in good." And 
again : " so I say of endless punishment, * God can see it.' " 
Can see what 1 Endless punishment. So can we. But I 
deny that God can see the end of endless punishment, any 
more than we can. it is endless and therefore has no end ; 
consequently neither God nor man can see its end ! But it 
is itself an end ; and being such we can " see it " as well as 
God can. We can see that it is not a means to some end, 
which might be good; there are no consequences to follow 
it, for there is no afterwards to it! Talk about endless pun- 
tsment eventuating in good ! The man must be crazy ! To 
admit that a thing will eventuate in something else, is to ad- 
mit that it will not be endless ; therefore if future punishment 
is to eventuate in good, then it is not endless, but limited 
punishment. Eventuate, indeed : The gentleman cannot 
apply his doctrine to my argument. 1 charge endless pun- 
ishment with' being an endless curse — cruel, unmitigated, and 
malignant; having no good in view, nor any eventration; 
in fine, without one solitary mitigating circumstance, I pro- 
nounce it an infinite evil. And if this doctrine be true, 
then it is a result, an end of God's government ; and being 
such, 1 charge God with being the author of it ! This is my 
position, and the gentleman can make the most of it ! 

The gentleman seems to take it quite hard because I said 
it was none of his business whether my hell does any good 
or not. Now, 1 should like to know what * business ' he has 
to talk about my hell in this debate \ It is his hell about 
which we are debating, not mine ! At some other time, if 
he wishes, we will talk about my hell. I wish it distinctly 
understood, that I do not affirm any thing about punishment 
on this question. Mr. Franklin has the affirmative, while I 
simply deny. So far as the question is concerned, it is no 
matter whether punishment be in this world, or in the future, 
or in both. The question before us is endless punishment: 
and the gentleman would do well to keep to the question, if 
he can ! 

But the gentleman has at length made an effort to sustain 
his proposition, which is worthy of, and shall receive, our 



302 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



most distinguished consideration. He introduces Matt, 26 ; 
46, 4 * And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, 
but the righteous into life eternal." His argument rests upon 
the following foundation, viz. 1st, That aionion, rendered 
k * everlasting " and "eternal" in the text, means endless 
duration, and 2d, That 44 eternal life " means the immortal 
life of the righteous. Both of these assumptions (for they 
are but assumptions) I deny, and shall proceed to show my 
reasons for doing so. 

And the-first thing to which 1 will call your attention is 
the meaning of the word rendered everlasting. And 1 here 
lay it down as an incontrovertible position, that an adjective 
cannot mean more than the noun from which it is derived. 
Aionion, (or aionios,) the word rendered 44 everlasting " and 
41 eternal 5 \in the text, is the adjective derived from aion, the 
noun. Says the celebrated Scarlett, in speaking of this sub- 
ject : 44 That aionion does not mean endless or eternal may 
appear from considering that no adjective can have a greater 
force than the noun from which it is derived : thus, black 
cannot mean more than blackness* white than whiteness, &c. 
If aion means age, [which none either will or can deny,) 
then aionion must mean agelasting, or duration through the 
age, or ages to which the thing spoken of relates.*' Let us 
therefore ascertain the meaning of aion. Donnegans defi- 
nition: 'Aion, time; a space of time; lifetime; the ordi- 
nary period of man's life ; the age of man : man's estate ; a 
long period of time ; eternity. 5 

Pickering: 6 Aion, an age ; a long period of time ; inde- 
finite duration ; time, whether longer or shorter, past, present, 
or future ; in the New Testament, the wicked men of the 
age; the life of man.' 

Schrevelius (English edition,) : 4 Aion, an age, a long pe- 
riod of time ; indefinite duration ; time, whether longer or 
shorter, past, present, or future.' 

Hinks : 4 Aion, a period of time ; an age ; an after-time : 
eternity.' 

Wright : 4 Aion, time, age, lifetime, period, revolution of 
ages, dispensation of Providence, present world or life, 
world to come, eternity.' 

Giles : 4 Aion, time, an age, an indefinite period of time, 
eternity,' 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT, 



303 



Lutz : " Awn, ail age, time, eternity.' 

Schleusner : (Eng. ed.) 4 Aion, any space of time, whether 
longer or shorter, past, present, or future, to be determined 
by the persons or things spoken of, and the scope of the sub- 
jects; the life or age of man: any space in which we measure 
human life from birth to death.' 

ParkhursL : 4 Aion denotes duration of time, but with 
great variety.' 

Ewing : 4 Aion, duration, finite or infinite ; a period of 
duration, past, or future; an age; duration of the world; 
the time of a man's life ; an age of divine dispensation.' 

Greenfield : 4 Aion, duration, finite or infinite ; unlimited 
duration ; eternity.' 

Anthon : 4 Aion, an age ; time ; eternity.' 

Bishop Pearce : 4 An age is the proper meaning of awn.' 

Br. Priestly : 4 Aion means entire period, age or dispen- 
sation.' 

Dr. Watts : 4 Aion does not mean endless when applied to 
punishment.' 

Alexander Campbell: * The radical idea of awn, is indefi- 
nite duration.^ 

I have given you all the authors I have at my command, 
at present; the above are all either lexicographers, or emi- 
nent theologians, and it will be seen that none of thern give 
eternity as the first or primary meaning of aion ; and many 
^ of them do not give it this meaning at all. How then came 
it to pass that it means eternity, or endless duration, simply 
by changing it from a noun to an adjective ? It does not, 
and cannot, according to any known rule of language. But 
I will now give you some authority on the adjective itself. 

Bonne gan: Aionias — of long duration; eternal, lasting, 
permanent? 

Pickering: — Aionias — of long duration; lasting, some- 
times everlasting; sometimes lasting through life, as aternus, 
in Latin. (Schrevelius, the same.) 

But perhaps it would be better for me to quote from The- 
ological authority, than to depend upon Lexicons simply, as 
it is sometimes said that Lexicons give rather the classic 
than the theological meaning of words; that is, they give the 
meaning of the ancients, who probably did not know as much 
about their own language as we moderns do! 



304 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



In the "Christian Examiner, 5 ' a paper published in Boston, 
may be found a series of articles, commencing in the Dec. 
No., 1828, and ending in the May No., 1833, by the late 
Rev. E. S. Goodwin, a very learned orthodox clergyman, in 
which this subject is thoroughly examined. He says, "This 
word (aion) expresses the existence of being alone." He 
denies that these words (aion and aionias) ever necessarily 
have the meaning of duration. His conclusion is that they 
express the character of existence, rather than its duration— 
aionton life meaning spiritual life, and aioniau punishment, 
spiritual punishment, or a deprivation of the spiritual life of 
the gospel. But I have referred to this author more for the 
following remark than any thing else. In referring to the 
declaration of Phavorinus that "aion is also the eternal and 
endless, as it is regarded by the theologian," he says, "Here 
1 strongly suspect is the true secret brought to light, of the 
origin of the sense of eternity in aion: the theologian first 
thought he perceived it, or else he placed it there; the the- 
ologian keeps it there now; and the theologian will probably 
retain it there longer than any one else." Here is the "true 
secret" how aionian come to mean endless — admitted to be 
such by an orthodox theologian himself. The theologian 
first perceived that the word had that meaning; and if he did 
not perceive it, he placed it there! That is the reason why 
Lexicons (unbiassed by theology) and the primitive use of 
this word, are against modern theology on this question. 
This is an important admission. But to proceed. 

Says Dr. U atts, in speaking of the happiness of the right- 
eous, and the impropriety of depending on these words (aion 
and aionion) to prove its endlessness: "Now are there any 
sinners so void of understanding, of so daring and desperate 
a mind, as to venture their 'eternal all' upon such a poor 
criticism of words? Even upon the supposition that these 
terms in the Greek and Hebrew might signify any long du- 
ration short of eternity; yet there is a terrible hazard in 
confining them to this sense, since they do not denote a pro- 
per eternity, when they describe the duration of the blessed 
God: and I think we may add also, the duration of the hap- 
piness of the saints" — World to Come. p. 302. My friend, 
Mr. Franklin, it seems, is just such a "sinner" — "daring and 
desperate of mind;" for he predicates the endless duration 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 



305 



of his future happiness on the word aionion. A slender foun* 
dation, I fear! 

But again: Says Dr. Mac Knight, who Mr. F. will admit 
is good authority — " These words (axon and aionios) being 
ambiguous, are always to be understood according to the na- 
ture and circumstances of the things to which they are ap- 
plied." Again he says, "I must be so candid as to acknow- 
ledge, that the use of these terms, forever, eternal, and ever- 
lasting, in other passages of scripture, shows that they who 
understand these words in a limited sense, when applied to 
punishment, put no forced interpretation upon them" Here 
the great Doctor admits, and from the evidence I have just 
given you, Mr. Franklin must admit, and you must admit, 
that when Universalists understand these words in a limited 
sense, when applied to punishment, they put no forced inter- 
pretation upon them! Their primary signification is not, and 
never was, endless; and they cannot have that meaning, un- 
less the subject to which they are applied necessarily re- 
quires it. And we all know there is nothing in the nature of 
punishment which requires it to be endless; but every thing 
to the contrary. The gentleman's proof-text, therefore, can- 
not teach endless punishment. But as the passage does not 
teach the gentleman's doctrine, it will be expected that I tell 
you what it does teach. This I will do in as brief a manner 
as possible. 

Eternal life: It will be necessary first to ascertain what 
is meant by eternal and everlasting life, as Mr. Franklin as- 
sumes that it means the life of the righteous beyond the 
grave, and upon this assumption argues that everlasting pun- 
ishment must apply to the future existence also. 1 admit 
that if one does, both do; but I deny that either has such an 
application. Says our Savior: " This is eternal life, to know 
the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent"-- 
Jno. 17: 2. " He that believeth on the Son, hath everlasting 
life." Jno. 3: 36. "Verily I say unto you, he that heareth 
my words, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlast- 
ing life." Jno. 5: 24. Eternal life, therefore, is something 
to be enjoyed in this world. A knowledge ot God, and of 
Jesus Christ, is eternal life; to know, believe, and obey the 
Gospel, is life everlasting — -not will he, in the future, but is 
already, in the present, We read that "no murderer hath 
20 



3GM 



TiTliOL.QGJ.CLA h. BISC.IIS.Sj ON. 



eternal life abiding in Mmi" hut the christian has this eter- 
nal life abiding in him; it is the life of the Gospel of the 
kingdom. r . t 

Notice in the next place that this judgment, from which 
some were to "go away into everlasting punishment," and 
the others into "life eternal,** was to take place. " When 
the Son of Man shall come in his glory," &c. (verse 31.) 
When was this to be? Hear Alexander Cam.pl >ell: "But 
they saw the Lord 'come in power' and awful glory, and ac- 
complish all his predictions on the deserted and devoted tem- 
ple, city, and people," Chris. Rest. p. 174. Thus Mr. 
Campbell says the Son of Man came in "power and awful 
glory, " at the destruction of Jerusalem, which is true enough. 
Then it was that "allnations were gathered before him" — 
then it was that the nations were "separated" to the right* 
and to the left. Then it was that the Savior said, "Come ye 
blessed of my Father, inherit the" kingdom prepared for you 
from the foundation of the world." What kingdom was this? 
I answer— the gospel kingdom.' The Jews were driven out, 
were placed on the left; the kingdom was taken from them 
and given to the Gentiles, those on the right. "Therefore I 
say unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, 
and given to another nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. 
Ch. 21: 43. This then is the kingdom which those on the 
right were invited to come and inherit— it was the Gospel 
kingdom. "And these (those on the left, the Jews) shall go 
away into alonion punishment, i. e. age lasting punishment, 
or the punishment of the age- — -but the righteous (those on 
the right, the Gentiles) into aionion life, the life of the age, 
or gospel dispensation.,' This I maintain to be the true 
meaning of the text. It is the close of the Savior's memo- 
rable account and prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem, 
.contained in the 24th and 2 5 th chapters of Math., and to get 
a correct understanding of it, the whole of that account must 
be taken into consideration. From the loregoing we come 
to the following conclusions: 

1st. The 'coming of the Son of Man,' at which this judg- 
ment was to take place, meant his' "coming in his kingdom'* 
—"in the clouds of heaven," in "power" and "glory," which 
I abundantly showed while oh the first proposition, was to 
lake place during that generation, or the apostolic' age/ 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 



?>0T 



2d. That "the kingdom" which was to be enjoyed by those 
in the "right" and from which those on the "left" were to be 
driven out, means the christian church, or gospel kingdom. 

3d. That the life eternal mentioned in the text means the 
spiritual life enjoyed by the subjects of the kingdom. 

4th. That the everlasting punishment means the punish- 
ment of the age, which the Jews have continued to endure 
ever since the dread 'judgment,' and probably will continue 
to endure throughout the gospel age, for it is to be age-lasting,. 

And 5th. That the text has no reference to the future state, 
and consequently can render Mr. Franklin no assistance 
whatever. 

But I must proceed to the gentleman's next argument, as I 
find my time has nearly expired. I cannot dp this however 
without first apologizing for detaining you so long on this sub- 
ject, and especially on the meaning of the words a ion and 
aionion. This is an important question, one upon which 
hangs not only the destiny of this debate, but the destiny of 
the world ! What is the meaning of aionion punishment? 
is a question in which we are all interested. If aionion, when 
applied to punishment means e.ulless. then alas for Univer- 
salism ! and alas for a large portion of mankind ! But if, on 
the contrary? it means a limited duration., as I have, I think, 
abundantly shown, then my opponent has failed, and must 
forever fail, to prove his proposition. Knowing this K I wished 
to make sure work while 1 was at it. Thus much by way of 
apology. 

The gentleman quotes Keb 7: If)— "who is made, not after 
the law of carnal commandment, but after the power of an 
endless life." But his failure here consists in. the, fact that 
the word endless qualifies life, and not the priesthood of 
Christ! Christ was made or exists, not by the law. of carnal 
commandment, but after the power of an endless life. The 
third verse explains this, "without, father, without mother, 
without descent, having neither beginning of day nor end. of 
life." But the word which qualifies the priesthood.. of Christ 
is aiona, rendered forever: for he testifieth, thou arta priest 
forever, after the end of MelchLsedec/V No one believes 
that Christ's priesthood will be endless. When he gives up 
the mediatorial reign, which he is to do at the resurrection, 
he will cease to be a priest, He is a priest forever— that is 3 



308 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



throughout his reign or dispensation, throughout the gospel 
age. Still he was made after the power of an endless (aka~ 
talutou) life, i. e., without father or mother, beginning of days 
or end of life. His life is to be endless, this no one doubts ; 
but his priesthood is to be aiona, forever, or during the age or 
dispensation ol his reign. Let the gentleman find the word 
akatalutou applied to punishment, and we give it up ; but he 
must not expect to prove the endlessness of punishment, or 
of any thing else, by the force of axon, after what has been 
said on the meaning of that word, and its derivatives! And 
he must not imagine that the apostle used the word aiona in 
the 17th verse to denote the same as that of akatalutou in the 
16th verse; for he must recollect that the one is applied to the 
life, the existence of Christ, while the other is applied to his 
priesthood! So this passage renders him no assistance. 

What the gentleman says about the phrase 4 forever and 
ever,' occurring thirteen times in the book of Revelation, I 
shall dispose of in a few words. First, if forever (eis tote 
aiona) means endless, then what does forever and ever (eis 
ton aiona, tou aionon) mean? If one means endless then two 
means more than endless! But the simple meaning is — from 
age to age, or, throughout the ages. When it is said "Him 
that liveth for ever and ever," the meaning is — Him that liveth 
from age to age, or throughout the ages; "and they shall reign 
forever and ever," that is, throughout the ages. "And he 
(Christ) shall reign for ever and ever." Now does not the 
gentleman believe that Christ will cease to reign at the resur- 
rection, when he shall "deliver up the kingdom to God the 
Father," and God becomes "all in all?" Surely then Christ 
is not to reign throughout endless duration ! This was an 
unfortunate reference for my friend, if he wishes to prove 
endless duration by "forever and ever;" for we know that 
Christ's reign is not to be endless if Paul is to be relied on. 
Christ is only to reign till he hath subdued all things unto 
himself" (God excepted) ; and then he is to give up his reign, 
and become subject himself to Him who put all things under 
him. 

Of the remaining places to which the gentleman refers, it is 
scarcely necessary to refer. The beast and the false prophet 
''shall be tormented day and night, forever and ever." Is 



ENDLESS r UNIS SMEN T . 



309 



there to be day and night in eternity? or does not this rather 
show that the passage has no reference to eternity ? 

"And the smoke of their torment ascended forever and 
ever." In Isa. 34 we have something about fire and brim- 
stone, and about the smoke ascending forever, &c, which 
will probably throw some light on this subject. Speaking of 
the land of Idumea, and of things that were to take place in 
this world, the prophet says, "and the streams thereof shall 
be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and 
the land thereof shall become burning pitch ; it shall not be 
quenched, night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for- 
ever; from generation to generation it shall lie waste — none 
shall pass through it forever and ever." All this had refer = 
ence to things in this world; and so also I affirm of the pas- 
sages the gentleman quotes from Revelation. So far then 
he has made a signal failure ! 

In my last I told you that you should not expect too much 
of my friend, and I quoted a number of passages from the 
scriptures, as being directly opposed to his doctrine. In his 
last he made what he called a reply to them ! I will briefly 
notice some of his remarks. 

"Death, the last enemy shall be destroyed." This refers 
to the time when all will be raised from the dead. Death will 
then be destroyed, literally and completely destroyed. And 
it is the last enemy: consequently there are no enemies beyond 
the resurrection. All this was explained while on the second 
proposition. The genleman, in reply to this passsge, quotes 
Rev. 20 — "and death and hell were cast into the lake of fire 
— this is the second death," and allows this is the way death 
is to bn destroyed! This might be, were it not that the passage 
in Rev. refers to scenes which have long since taken place, 
as I abundantly showed while on the first proposition. It is 
too late in the day to apply the 20th of Rev. to the future, 
and particularly to the resurrection, and scenes beyond it! 
But admitting his application of the passage, death cannot be 
destroyed by being cast into a second death ! If- the first 
death should thus be destroyed, the second death would still 
be in existence! But death, the last enemy, is to be destroyed, 
annihilated, which can only be done by a universal resurrec- 
tion ; so there will be no second death, nor any other kind of 
"enemy" beyond the resurrection. 



310 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



His application of the passage, * 4 all the ends of the world 
shall remember and turn unto the Lord," &c> needs no reply ; 
it sufficiently refutes itself ! 

On the promise to Abraham, he says I "forgot to tell you 
that Paul teaches that the promise is to be "given to them 
that believe" — jjand that I would probably "add the words. 
* and to them that believe not also.' " No, my friends, this is 
not my doctrine, *'twist it as he may. 1 " The promise and the 
thing promised are two very different things. The promise 
is to be given to none but them that believe ; but the blessing 
contained in the promise is for all mankind. The gentleman 
would do well if he would pay some attention to this fact. 
God has promised to bless all mankind in Christ ; this bles- 
sing is certain and absolute: but none can enjoy the pro- 
mise of it but them that believe. 

"God is love." "Yes," says Mr. F. "God is love, not 
will be love." The gentleman allows that as God is love— 
is good unto all. and his tender mercies are over all his 
works, and notwithstanding ail this, he punishes men in this 
world for their sins, he can see no reason why he may not 
punish them endlessly,, and still be good to them — -still 
be love ! He seems to forget that there is a remarkable 
difference between limited punishment, which "eventuates in 
good," and endless torture, which has no eventuation. A 
'•God of love" cannot inflict an endless curse upon any of 
his offspring; but he can punish them, and do it in love— 
for it is to eventuate in good ; but I deny, yes, 1 deny that a 
God of love can inflict endless punishment upon any of .his 
creatures ! These two sentiments are in direct opposition to 
each other j and either the one or the other must be false ! 

A few words now about the "degrees of glory." In 
the first place, I deny that a being can suffer an infinite evil 
whose amount of ■--enjoyment is greater than that of his 
sufferings ; where the good he -enjoys overbalances the eviL 
No one denies that "a finite creature in a finite state can 
do something that . will affect his condition in a infinite slate ;" 
but 1 do most solemnly deny that a finite creature in a finite 
state can do something that will so affect his condition in an 
infinite state, as to render him the subject of an infinite evil 1 
AH mankind will be infinitely better off in the future state, 
than they are here; yet, some will be in advance of others. 



ENDLESS rUMSHJIENT. 



ml 



Paul and. Peter, I have no doubt, will be ahead of Mr, Frank- 
lin and myself! and probably we shall be ahead of some of 
the Indians! But all will be positively happy ; there will be 
no such a thing as positive evil, and therefore none can 
suffer an infinite evil. Mr. Franklin, I am quite sure, be- 
lieves in "degrees of glory, ,s or that some will be. in advance 
of others in ••moral and intellectual attainments/' among 
those with whom he expects to associate in heaven. No 
doubt he thinks he will be superior, m some respects, to some 
of his weaker brethren ; yet he has hardly the presumption 
to think he will be as great a man as Paul or Peter or John, 
at any rate, not immediately on his entrance into that world ! 
Well, just what he allows in regard to them . that go to 
heaven,- 1 allow in regard to ail mankind , for I believe that alt 
will go there. 

But the question is in regard to infinite evil and if a dif- 
ference in degrees of moral and intellectual condition in the 
future state., shows that some will suffer an infinite evil, then 
it follows -that many, probably alt, who ^o to heaven, will 
suffer. an infinite evil ! Mr.. Franklin will suffer an infinite 
evil, because he will not be equal to Paul and Peter, to 
Luther and Melancthon, to Howard, ..Murra\ , and father 
Oberlin, ail of whom v made great moral and intellectual im- 
provements in this life : the apostles will suffer an infinite 
evil,, because they will never become equal to the Savior !— 
and even the Savior himself, must sustain an infinite evif^ 
because he will never become equal to the Father f What 
an idea. 

It is rational to suppose, I said, that there will be difference 
of character in the future state— depending in some degree, 
upon the improvements made in this life. All will be happy 
—all progressing in the upward tendency; but some will 
be in advance of others; some will have made greater moral 
and intellectual improvement here, than others, and con- 
sequently, wili be that much ahead of them— though all will 
be happy. The moral, upright individual, who has improved 
his faculties by cultivating a spirit of charity, benevolence, 
and all the higher orders of our nature, though he never 
"joined the chuch," or professed any particular creed, will be 
far in advance of that old, hardened, and selfish sinner, who, 
although a few days or months before" he died, repented, "got 



512 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION, 



religion, was baptised, and had his sins all pardoned ! Pro- 
fessions of faith, and the observance of certain church cere- 
monies, is not the kind of moral and intellectual improve- 
ment, of which I speak. These are all well enough in 
their place ; but they are only as as the shadow to the 
substance ! 

And there will be some denominations, and then again 
some nations, that will be far in advance of others, in the 
future state, as a general rule; while, of course, there 
will be individual exceptions to this rule. Let me illustrate. 
The United States, as a nation, will probably be in advance 
of the Mexicans, while the latter will no doubt, be in advance 
of Islanders of the Pacific, and the tribes of North American 
Indians ; while those again will be in advance of the New 
Hollanders. In regard to denominations, I believe the Uni- 
versalists, as a body, will stand at the head ; they are 
more intellectual as a class, than others, and they cultivate 
the social and moral powers more than other denominations ; 
have a greater benevolence — more expanded charity and love 
for their species — more exalted views of God and his gov- 
ernment ; in fine, they are superior to others in all that con- 
stitutes true moral and intellectual improvement. There 
will be individual exceptions here, of course. We have 
some among us, who are no better than they should be — who 
are selfish, bigoted, and narrow minded as others. Next to 
the Universalists will probably rank the Unitarians ; they are 
generally a very liberal minded people, and are generally 
characterized for their benevolence and uprightness. They 
also are an intellectual people. The Quakers undoubtedly , will 
come in next. Many of them, as well as of Unitarians, are 
in reality Universalists. Besides this, they are distinguished 
for their real goodness ; for morality, benevolence, sympa- 
thy for the oppressed, and for the spiritual improvement. 
Now, of the other denominations, such as Presbyterians, 
Baptists, Campbellites, Methodists, &c.,it is difficult to decide 
which should have the preference. They are all more 
or less selfish, bigoted, sectarian, and Pharisaical ; entertain- 
ing very limited and dishonorable views of God and his gov- 
ernment ; and I have only time to remark that in the resur- 
rection, I am afraid they will find that they have much 
to learn — that they are far, very far in the rear of many 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT, 



313 



who, until then, they had thought would not even attain 
the "out skirts" of heaven, much less be ranked in the 
"first class !"• [ Time expired.] 

I 



MR. FRANKLIN'S FOURTH SPEECH 



Gentlemen and Ladies : 

I am pleased to see that my friend, Mr. Manford, seems so 
fully to appreciate his situation. He feels conscious when his 
time has expired that his work is not done, and consequently 
encroaches a little more and a little more on our stipulated 
time every speech. I do not blame him at all for this, for 1 
want him to have no excuse, but to have the fullest and fair- 
est opportunity he could desire, that his failure may be attrib- 
uted to no other cause, but the impossibility for any man to 
sustain his position. It is perfectly fair then, that he should 
lengthen out his speeches, as his cause really needs it, and 
as 1 am permitted to occupy the same length of time. It is 
true, I do not need the time to enable me to sustain my posi- 
tion ; but as die whole is shortly to go before the world in a 
book, and as I have plenty of the best of materials, I shall oc- 
cupy the same length of time he did. 

Although he still accuses me of "wilful falsehood" I can= 
not help admitting that he is in a better humor than he has 
heretofore been. He succeeded in pleasing himself so much 
better in his last speech than he had done before, that it gave 
him a momentary comfort-— a short respite, from the agony 
he has experienced in sympathising with his darling system, 
to which he seems so closely wedded. Yet he seems almost as 
if he hates me with a most bitter hatred, because I will not or 
cannot love his dear theory. He has, no doubt, frequently 
recollected the consoling words, that it is through much trib- 



314 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION, 



ulation we enter into the kingdom, since our debate com- 
menced 

He tells you, that you may take it for granted, when 1 talk 
ot his anger, that 1 am used up, and don't know what else to say, 
But I would caution you not to be loo fast in taking things for 
granted. This way of taking for granted what he cannot 
prove, is what has involved him in the present difficulty.— 
"Used up," indeed! and "don't know what to say!" What 
mighty men these Universalian disputants are to use up every 
body they come in contact with ! That sounded well on the 
ear of this community. How dreadfully 1 have, been perplex= 
ed to find something to say ! The public will judge. 

After complaining about my dividing and subdividing my 
proposition in every speech, the gentleman now tells you, 
that he is "in no trouble about it," Yet he goes immediately 
on to .complain again, and says, "we agreed to debate a eer- 
tain proposition, viz; endless punishment" That is only a 
part of pur proposition, which reads as follows : " Do the 
Scriptures teach that those .who die in disobedience to the 
gospel will suffer endless punishment V He is perfectly a 
man of one idea. He has his eye so fixed on the word end- 
less,, that he can scarcely see another word in the proposi- 
tion. 

For the sake of distinctness 1 divided my proposition into 
three, and have taken them piece by piece, and argued them. 
When Mr, Manibrd saw the course 1 was about to pursue, he 
was perfectly disarmed, and has utterly refused to reply to 
some of the most pointed arguments I have advanced, on the 
first part of the question. All this will appear in my recapit- 
ulation, 

In the last speech he decided that nothing was to the point 
that did not relate to the duration of punishment, and then 
assured you that he could not be drawn off from the question 
—that take what course I might choose, he would not reply to 
any thing that did not bear directly on the question. After 
thus speaking he set off as directly as he could go, and made 
the greater portion of his speech upon those very things which 
lie had declared not to the point! When he says he will not 
reply to certain points, we are to understand he will do it the 
very first thing ! This was not wilful, but a blunder he made 
when he was so confused that he did know what he was 
about. 



ENDLE S S PUN 1 SHMENT . 



315 



He is now trying to escape from what he said about there 
being nothing at stake if Universal ism is true, by accusing me 
of misrepresenting him, and is now greatly displeased with 
my head and heart on account of it. But he need not blame 
me, for if he is misrepresented, he did it himself, for I quoted 
his words precisely as he uttered them. I knew when the 
expression fell from his lips, that he would be startled when 
he would hear it quoted. But I neither misunderstood nor mis- 
represented him . He contended that if the doctrine of endless 
punishment is true, every body ought to know it, and argued 
from the fact that many do not know it, that it is pretty good evi- 
dence it is false. I contended then, that the fact that a much less 
number believe Universalism, was still better evidence that it is 
false. He then argues, that if the doctrine of endless punisiv 
mentis true, it is of incomparably more importance that every 
body might know it, than it is that every body should know 
it if Universalism is true. On this point he said, "It is true, it 
would be better for the world, if every body was acquainted 
with Universalism, and believed in it.; but then there is not 
so much— nothing in fact— at stake, if Universalism be true/ 
in comparison with what there is if endless punishment be 
true." These are his own words, and if they misrepresent 
him, he ought not to have uttered them, But what reason did 
he give, for saying there was comparatively "nothing in fact 
at 0tcckel" And why did he think there was so much at stake, 
if the doctrine of endless punishment is true? and why is it 
so important that all should know it? His answer is, " that 
they might have a chance to avoid it." Indeed; and how 
would they avoid it ? No one has taught any plan to avoid 
it, that J know of, only a close and careful observance of the 
commandments ol' God. He allows then, that all ought to 
know it, that they might avoid it, and the only way in which 
they can avoid it is to obey the Lord. Then it is more im- 
portant that the world should know the doctrine I am contend- 
ing for, if true, than that contended for by Mr. Mariford, for 
if they believe in endless punishment they will obey God , to 
escape it, but if they believe his doctrine, they will disobey the 
Lord. That is just what we have been telling Universalists all 
the time, but I did not expect Mr. M. to own it. He has how- 
ever done it in all its length and breadth. If his doctrine be 
true then, according to his own showing, there is compara- 



316. 



THEOfcOG ICAL DISC V S SIGN . 



lively ''nothing in fact at stake," whether you know it or not 
You are then wasting your money in paying him for 
preaching and writing. That is all. There is nothing new in 
all this, only that the gentleman should have owned it! That 
such was the fact we were well satisfied before. 

We are not disputing any thing about the heathen nations 
who never heard the gospel, but about those who die in diso- 
bedience to the gospel. Does he understand the Bible to 
threaten any with punishment who do not hear the gospel or 
rather who have never had an opportunity to hear it ? He 
should prove such to be the fact, before he builds any argu- 
ment upon it. 

I cannot get Mr. Manford to believe our Savior, when he 
speaks of those who should stand "without the door and knock." 
He contends that they will be in the kingdom at the very time the 
Lord said they should stand "without" and "seek to enter in 
and shall not be able" Now I did not promise to convince 
any man in this debate who positively will not believe the 
clearest and most explicit statements of the Son of God. Be 
it whatever kingdom it may, he is here speaking of, the Lord 
declares they shall stand without, and shall cry Lord, Lord, 
open unto us, and shall strive to enter in and shall not be 
able. Does Mr. Manford believe this language? He posi- 
tively does not, but on the other hand, declares and repeats it 
over and over again, that they were in all the time. Such is 
the desperate alternative to which he is driven, on this clear 
and explicit passage of the word of God. ^ 

He alleges that the Jews did strive to enter into the church, 
and were not able; but this I deny. The church of God has 
been open to the Jew as well as the Gentile, and the Jews 
have been invited, and are still invited, to come into the 
church. No one, either Jew or Gentile, ever did strive to enter 
into the church and was not able. This fact is one strong 
evidence that it did not mean the church. Mr. Manford ad= 
mits that the "kingdom of God," (1 Cor. 15.) means heaven, 
in doing which he admits that the same words sometimes 
have reference to heaven, and sometimes to the church. — 
Then what good does it do to quote passages where "kingdom 
of God" means the church of God, to settle the question. 

We both admit that these words are sometimes applied to 
the church, and sometimes to Heaven itself. The simple 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 



317 



question between us is, concerning which does the Savior 
speak in the passage in dispute. 1 have showed that it could 
not be the church ; because, relative to entering into the 
church the Lord says, "whosoever will, may come ;" but 
in the case before us, some are to be willing, and the Lord 
will not let them come. 2. In the case before us, the door is 
to be shut ; but the door of the church will never be shut, 
while it is a church, to Jews or any body else. 3. In the 
case before us, some are to strive to enter in, but shall not 
he able ; but none strive to enter into the church, without be- 
ing able to enter in. 4. The time when they shall strive to 
enter in, is to be when they shall see Abraham, and Isaac, 
and Jacob, sit down in the kingdom, which will never be in 
the church in the present state. These four reasons he has 
never met, and never can meet. Mr. Manford thinks the 
words " thrust out of the kingdom," imply that they were in 
it. But if he will look at the passage carefully, he will see that 
the words " thrust out of the kingdom," are not in the pas- 
sage. They were simply told that they should be " thrust out," 
and as they were not in, but standing without at the door, 
that must have been where they were thrust out from. There 
is not one particle of difficulty in the whole passage, so far 
as my side of the question is concerned, the difficulty is on 
the other side altogether, and my friend, Mr. Manford, feels 
it sensibly, too, hence his labored struggle to escape in his 
last speech. 

The gentleman attempted some reply to my remarks rela- 
tive to the ridiculous idea of the christians at Ephesus, and 
other distant countries from Jerusalem, 44 laying up a good 
foundation against" the destruction of Jerusalem. He how- 
ever attempts to justify himself, by saying there were Jews ax 
Ephesus and those other distant places, addressed in the 
apostolic letters. That does not help the matter any. The 
apostle wrote to the churches, a large majority of whom were 
Gentile converts, and all of whom, as said before, were in no 
more danger from the destruction of Jerusalem, than we are 
from the Mexican war. 

Mr. Manford has now admitted that the word translated 
immortality, Ro. 2, 7, is the same word translated incorrup- 
tibility several times. 1 Cot. 15, yet he puts this immortality 
or incorruptibility, in this world in the former passage, and 



318 



THEOLOGICAL DISCISSION. 



in the resurrection state, in the latter. What reason does he 
give for so doing? No reason under Heaven, nor can he 
give any, unless he would come out and say, that Eo. 2. 
makes it conditional, and in Cor. 15, he does not discover 
any condition. The truth in the case is, this passage bids 
defiance to all cavil. The Roman disciples were already be- 
lievers, and consequently in the possession of all the life and 
incorruptibility available in this world, but are commanded 
to seek incorruptibility and eternal life in another state of be- 
ing. But I must hasten on, as all the gentleman has said on 
this point, amounts to but little, and get to the duration of 
punishment again as soon as possible, as he loves to hear me 
on that part of the subject so well. 

The gentleman has talked long and loud about the char- 
acter of God ; and even told us that he could not, and would 
not if he could, love such a God as 1 speak of. But what 
kind of a God does he love? Let us see. He says: "I 
would not charge God with being the author of lies, nor of 
the sin and wickedness committed in the world ; but still J 
cannot deny the fact that he is, in some sense or other, the 
author of every thing." How exceedingly modest! He 
would not charge God with being the author of lies ; but he 
cannot deny the fact that He is in some sense or other. Is it 
possible, that any one can love a God who is thus boldly ac= 
knowledged to be the author of lies ? and, to make the mat- 
ter worse, a professed minister is so modest, so perfectly 
tame and candid, that he " cannot deny the fact." What 
an insult to the holiness of Almighty God ! That blessed 
Being "who is truth," and "who cannot lie," must now be 
insulted and blasphemed in the presence of this assembly, to 
favor the most horrid system of wickedness the world ever 
saw! My friend, in one breath, can tell }<ou how good God 
is ;, and then, in the next breath, tell you that he cannot deny 
the fact, that He is in some sense the author of lies. And 
what is he to rely upon to prove his doctrine ? He appeals 
to the word of God, and when he can distort some sentence, 
so as to have a little the appearance of sustaining him, he 
calls upon you to believe it ; and then turns round and tells 
you that he "cannot deny the fact" that God is in some 
sense, the author of lies. 

He is frequently accusing me of wilful falsification, and 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT: 



319 



seems very angry about it. I looked upon it as a pretty 
grave charge ; but. upon reflection, I saw that it was not 
worth noticing, as it came from a man in such deep perplex- 
ity, that I was satisfied that he scarcely knew what he was 
about. But if he cannot deny that God is the author of lies 
in any sense, he is the worst bewildered man I have met 
with. I deny boldly and above-board, that God is the au- 
thor of lies in any sense, and dare him to attempt to prove 
it. I want him to place this argument immediately after his 
argument founded upon the goodness of God ! 

In some sense, God is the author of lies, and all the wick- 
edness in the world ! Yet he tells you that the wicked shall 
not go unpunished ! Punished for what, I would ask in the 
name of reason and common sense? For those sins of 
which God is the author, I suppose ! Yet "God is good and 
his tender mercies are over all his works !" The pure, per- 
fect, holy and righteous Lord God Almighty, who cannot 
look upon sin with the least allowance, who declared that he 
hated the wicked deeds of the Nicolahans, arid before whom 
the burning spirits fall prostrate, and exclaim, "Holy? holy? 
holy Lord God Almighty'* — [ say this blessed Being 
is charged here, by one who talks of his love and goodness, 
with being the father of lies ! 

lie talks about endless punishment being an evil ; but in 
his vocabulary, evil is good and good is evil. Not only so, 
but all evil is to eventuate in good, and the greater the evil 
the greater the good resulting from it ! At this rate we may 
vindicate the old plea, "let us do evil that good may come/' 
or, in other words, the more evil the more glory to God — 
But he tells you that the punishment of the wicked is for 
their good! Not when they are punished with a sorer 
punishment than death without mercy. I defy Kim or any 
other man to show that a sorer punishment than death with- 
out mercy can be for the good of the punished. Such a pun- 
ishment is for the good of others. The object of endless 
punishment is not for the good of the punished, but for the 
good of the universe around. It exhibits to man and angels the 
inflexibility of the threatenings of Almighty God, and com 
mands the obedience of an intelligent universe,' in the most 
authoritative manner possible ; and, consequently, if it fails 
to obtain subjection, it is because the rebellious are not cap a-- 



320 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



ble of being governed by moral power, and consequently not 
capable of being happy. 

The gentleman made a most brilliant quibble when he ex- 
claimed, with so much parade, "I deny that God can see 
the end of endless punishment." 1 was not talking about 
God seeing the end of its duration, but I used end in the 
same sense I understood him to use it. I was talking about 
tbe object or design of punishment, and used the word end 
in that sense, of course. This was not worthy of any no- 
tice, except to show what little things a man will catch at 
when he has nothing better ! 

Mr. Man ford still strives to justify himself in his churlish 
and peevish expression, that it is none of my business wheth- 
er his hell does any good or not. But he need not try to escape 
in that way, for he is not entirely irresponsible yet. The 
Bible speaks of hell, second death, punishment, tormenting, 
suffering, vengeance, fierceness, and wrath, of Almighty 
God, &c, &c. 1 undertake to say that these expressions re- 
fer to an endless nunishment, in the coming world. He tries 
to confine such expressions to something in this world. He 
contends that they cannot have the application I give them, 
because he cannot see that such a punishment will do any 
good. I then make the same objection to his application. — 
He then meets me with the overwhelming and irrefutable ar- 
gument that it is none of my business about his hell ! How 
courteous ! How mild the advocate of the blessed doctrine 
of universal salvation ! How it constrains the heart to love 
the doctrine which inspires such lovely language ! After 
talking of a hell in this world, which can neither be seen, 
felt, or suffered, and which the thousands of its inmates 
know nothing about, not so much as to believe it has, any 
existence, much less that they are in it all the time, and 
which he has now failed to point out, after spending almost 
three days in debate, and being called upon again and again 
to do it — I say after all this, he'gets up and asks what good 
an endless hell will do? and then, when, asked what good such 
a hell as he talks about will do, he politely answers: "It is 
none of your business!" No, my neighbors, it is none of 
our business, I suppose, what kind of silly nonsense shall be 
peddled out in our great community ! If it is the most simple 
and sickening stuff in creation ? we must bite in our lips and 



ENDLESS FK\ T ISHMF.\"T. 



look just as grave as though we were listening to any oracle 
from Heaven, for it is none of our business !*' 

I now come to the gentleman's "most distinguished con- 
sideration" of my argument, and if his most "distinguished*' 
consideration shall be found a failure, of course his less dis- 
tinguished considerations must fail. The first thing he at- 
tempts is to dodge the whole question, and escape entirely 
from the word in dispute ; but he need make no such efforts, 
for he is bound to come square up to the work and meet the 
question full in the face, or show to this audience that he 
cannot. The word to which I refer occurs twice, Matt. 25 ; 
46, and once is translated everlasting and once eternal. 
That Greek word is ai onion. This word has been in the lips of 
every Universalian preacher and talker throughout the land, 
during the last twenty years, and upon it they have defied 
all creation. But now that the word is brought into debate, 
and we have a large and listening crowd, anxious to 
hear what can be said upon it, and what is the first move of 
Mr. Manford ? Why. he tells you that it means the same as 
another word, and then sets off in a great parade to give a 
long string of authorities, defining that other word. But if 
amnion means the same as a/ott, why did he not proceed to 
give the definitions of aionion in the place of aionf The rea- 
son is clear. He knew well that such a course would seal 
the fate of our argument. But if he wished to investigate 
the question fairly why did he not open the lexicon and read 
out to you the definition of this very word {aionion) found 
in the passage in dispute ? For a very good reason, viz : 
That definition is just as much against him, and just as much 
in my favor as it could be. The first definition is "unlim- 
ited as to duration/' Now, he gives you Greenfield on 
aion, and when he did so, the lexicon was open at the very 
place where the word in question was to be found, and his eye 
was within one inch of the spot where that word was defined 
"unlimited as to duration." Why did he not give the defi- 
nition of the word in dispute l Can he or any other of his 
friends answer that question ? He tells you that axon means 
the same thing. I deny it. The lexicons give the words 
different meanings, and that is sufficient evidence to any man 
who regards their authority, that they do not mean the same 
thing. 

n 



3$f| THEOLOGICAL DJSCTSSTOX. 

The very fact of Mr. Manfofd's attempting to escape the 
issue on aionion and get off to a word not in the passage, is 
a most manifest evidence that he knew that he could not 
stand the proper issue. If it were even granted that the 
words mean the same, there would still he no reason for de- 
serting the one in question, and quoting the definitions of 
another word ; hut on the contrary? let him stick to the de- 
finitions of the word in question, 

1 do not indulge much in quoting human authorities in dis- 
cussions, as they r prove nothing any way, only to nil up and 
make a long speech, when a man is unable to say any thing 
himself; but to prove the sincerity of Mr. M's great regard 
for Dr. A. Clark, 1 will give you a few words from him on 
me passage and the word in question, as follows : 

u 4 Everlasting punishment.' No appeal, no remedy, to 
all eternity ! no end to the punishment of those, whose final 
impenitence manifests in them an eternal will and desire to 
sin. By dying in a settled opposition to God, they cast 
themselves into a necessity of continuing in an eternal aver- 
sion from Him. But some are of opinion that this punish- 
ment shall have an end ; this is as likely as that the glory of 
the righteous shall have an end : for the same word is used 
to express the duration of the punishment, as is used to ex- 
press the duration of the state of glory. I have seen the 
best things that have been written in favor of the final re- 
demption of the damned spirits; but I never saw an answer 
to the argument against the doctrine, drawn from this verse, 
but what sound learning and criticism should be ashamed to 
acknowledge. The original w r ord is certainly to be taken in 
its proper grammatical sense, continued being, never enbing.** 

Thus Dr. Clark deposes against him in the meaning of 
the passage and the meaning of the word in question. You 
will now see how much he cares for Dr. Clark. 

If the gentleman cares any thing for authorities, I should 
think he would pay some attention to the seventy learned 
translators, who have translated the word aionion by eternal 
and everlasting, which words are defined by Webster, " con- 
tinuing without end, immortal.'' But he can set all authority 
aside by one bare assertion, by telling you that it means the 
*ame as another word, and then expend his whole force on 



KNDT.KSS PUNISHMKNT. 



323 



that other word, without touching the word in dispute. No 
man can ever learn the truth in that way. 

In the passage, " these shall go away into everlasting 
punishment; hut the righteous into life eternal," the word 
ai onion from which we have everlasting and eternal, ex- 
presses duration aud nothing else, and that it means unlimit- 
ed duration, I think, I shall come very near making the 
gentleman acknowledge. 

He has quoted several passages to show that we have eter- 
nal life in this world, but we only have it prospectively. 
But suppose I take him at his word, and admit that we haveit 
in actual possession ; what then? The eternal life, he wouid 
say, is enjoyed by the christian in this world. But will it 
ever end ? He told me, in a private conversation, that it 
would not; but that eternal life began here, and wiliebntinue 
on perpetually. Well, what is the word eternal prefixed to 
it for ? To express its duration, and nothing else under 
heaven. Well, then, it expresses perpetual duration, for he 
dare not say the " eternal life " there spoken of will ever 
end. And he has admitted that if the life belongs after 
death, the punishment does also. Here, then, I have literally 
taken him prisoner, and have him now at my disposal. In 
speaking of the " eternal life " and " everlasting punish- 
ment," and of my applying them to the after-death state, he 
complains of me and allows they do not have that applica- 
tion, but says, " I admit that if one does, both do." But he 
contends that" eternal life " is in this world, but admits that 
it will never end ; and 1 have shown that the very same 
word that expresses its duration, in the same sentence, from 
the lips of the same speaker, expresses the duration of the 
punishment of the wicked. From this, no man ever did es- 
cape, or ever can. 

The gentleman, feeling sensible that he was failing, hap- 
pened to think of his signal failure on the first proposition, 
and set off to make a quotation from A. Campbell, to help 
him out ; but I do not consider that my part of the argument 
requires any additional support, and therefore shall not pay 
any farther attention to this point. 

On Heb. 7 : 16, Mr. M. either did not understand my ar- 
gument, or else he did not wish this audience to understand 
it, I care not which. He has not touched the argument. I 



THEOLOGICAL MSCtfSSjON. 



did not go to this passage to find punishment, but to get a 
definition of the word eternal. The assertion is here made 
that Christ was made a priest after the power of an endless 
life, by Paul ; who proceeded in the very next words to prove 
his assertion, from the expression, 44 Thou art a priest for- 
ever" It is no difference to me, whether you apply it to 
the priest or the life of the priesthood, because endless and 
forever are both applied to the same thing, and 1 deny that 
either one or the other will ever end. There is no escape 
from this definition. 

To my argument, drawn from the use of the expression 
44 forever and ever,'' in the thirteen times which it occurs 
in the book of Revelations, the gentleman has scarcely 
attempted any reply. I must detain you a few moments, 
however 5 40 notice what little he lias attempted to say on 
that point. He allows the reign of Christ will come to an 
end at the resurrection. It appears to me that he has a 
monstrous poor memory. W hile on his affirmative, he 
quoted Rev. 5 : 13, and applied it to the resurrection state, 
and I am sure Christ is there represented as sitting upon the 
throne. In verse 6 of the same chapter, he is represented 
as sitting in the midst of the throne. But I shall now use 
the opportunity, to show how unfounded another assertion 
he made in his last speech was. He asserted that I could 
not find another place where * 4 kingdom," 44 kingdom of 
God," or 44 kingdom of Christ M meant heaven itself, be- 
sides the one produced, 1 Cor. 15: 50, Well, I am now 
ready to make a trial. Look then at 2 Pet. 1 : 11, and see 
what kingdom is there spoken of. To the disciples — those 
already in the church, or as he expresses it, verse 1, 44 to 
them that have obtained like precious faith with us," to 
w T hom 44 his divine power had given all things that pertain to 
life and godliness," that they 44 might be partakers of the di- 
vine nature " — to those he gives the command, 44 besides all 
this," to 44 add to their faith virtue, knowledge, temperance, 
patience, godliness, brotherly kindness, and charity." He 
further alleges that if they would do this, they should never 
faZZ, but on the other hand, should make their calling and 
election sure ; *• for, says the apostle, 44 so an entrance shall be 
ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom 
of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ/* This could not mean 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 



325 



the church, for they had already entered into the church or the 
kingdom here, but he now tells how they may gain an admit- 
tance into the everlasting (aionion) kingdom of Christ. Christ 
then has an everlasting or eternal kingdom, and what is worse 
for my friend, is the fact that the entrance into it is conditional. 

Having now found an eternal kingdom of Christ, I shall 
refer to one verse to establish two points, 1. That the 
government of Jesus Christ, shall have no end. 2. That 
forever means that which shall have no end. I will read the 
verse. "Of the increase and peace of his government, there 
shall be no end; upon the throne of David, and upon his 
kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment 
and with justice from henceforth even forever." — Isa. 9: 7, 
I now put it to the gentleman to tell us whether he believes 
the words of the prophet, when he says, "of the increase of 
his government and peace, there shall be no end." What is 
here called "government" is called "kingdom" just below, 
and that which "shall have no end" is declared to be "hence- 
forth even forever." Thus then, I have produced a definition 
of forever, and found it to be that which is declared to have 
"no end." The declaration then, of Paul, that he shall 
deliver the kingdom to God, is no evidence that the reign of 
Christ will cease or the reign of the Saints with Him. The 
gentleman allowed this reference was unfortunate, and it does 
appear so to him. but not to my argument. 

He has made one other objection to my argument ; which 
is that there will be no day and night in eternity. 1 should 
like to know how he proves that there will be no night 
in eternity. It is true, we find the expression, "there shall be 
no night there," — Rev. 21 : 25; but he has applied all that to the 
church here on earth, and denied that it had any reference to 
the eternal state. Thus he seems capable of applying a pas- 
sage to the church when on one part of the argument, to 
avoid one point, and then turn round and apply the same 
to eternity, to get out of another difficulty ! But I will not 
hold him to his application of this passage to the church 
on earth, for that is evidently wrong, and he is right now 
in referring it to eternity. The expression occurs again, 
(Rev. 22: 5,) and the reason is given why there will be no 
night there. 1 will read the passage : "And there shall be 
no night there : and they need no candle, neither light of the 



326 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



sun ; for the Lord giveth them light, and they shall reign for- 
ever and ever." It is in eternity surely, but there is nothing 
said about day and night having ceased. But simply the 
assertion is made that "there shall be no night there," in the 
holy city that John saw descend from God, out of heaven. 
And there, in eternity, the Saints shall reign forever and ever, 
in the eternal kingdom, which has no end. The reason 
assigned for there being no night there, is not that day 
and night have ceased, but because the "Lord God giveth 
them light. " Not only so, but one of the passages states 
explicitly, that "the gates of it shall not be shut at all by 
day," which shows positively, that there shall be day there. 
But if you will turn to Rev. 7 : 15, you will hear it said 
of those who come up out of great tribulation, and are 
before the throne of God in His temple, that they serve 
Him "day and night." But it is asserted, (Heb, 1 : 12,) 
of God, that "thy years shall not fail." If he believes this 
passage, there is an end to all he has said about no day 
and night in eternity, for you cannot have years without 
days, and "the years of God fail not." 

I have now fully and fairly met and set aside every objec- 
tion he has made to my argument on the words "forever and 
ever," as used in Revelations ; and have shown that the 
expression is applied to the eternal state. The very same 
words then, used to express the duration of the shouts of the 
triumphant hosts before the throne of God, and the very 
same words used to express the duration of the existence 
of God, are used to express the duration of the punishment 
of the wicked. The man whose soul shall be destroyed 
in hell, after the death of the body, be exposed to eternal 
damnation, everlasting punishment, and be tormented day 
and night forever and ever, will as certainly find himself 
abandoned to ceaseless punishment, as that the Bible 
contains a revelation from God. It is true, all words have 
been used in a limited sense ; but this does not destroy 
their force at all, when used in their literal signification. 
Even the word "endless'' is used in the Bible, in a limited 
sense, when Paul speaks of endless genealogies, yet the 
gentleman never thought of appealing to this, to show that it 
did not mean literally, endless.— Heb. 7 : It). Even the words 
perpetually, ceaseless, and every other word in human speech 
may be, and are frequently used in the same way, but 



ENDLESS fTNISHMENT, 



tins alfects not their literal import in the least. I defy 
the gentleman to show that Uiq words I am applying to 
the future punishment of the wicked, in the passages 
upon which I rely, have the least indication of figurative use 
or anything but the most full, clear, and literal meaning. 
Let him try it, and see where he will land. 

Finding that he could not reply to my argument, the gen- 
tleman left the point in dispute, after a very short effort, and 
attempted to build up his affirmative argument, upon which 
he made such a manifest failure on yesterday- He did 
this for two reasons: 1. He had nothing to offer on our 
proposition, which he was willing to submit to my examina- 
tion. 2. He wished to get me off from the question, that 
1 might not expose his theory any further. And i might add 
as a third reason, that he was conscious that his day's work 
on yesterday, needed mending. But I hope you will observe 
the difference between him and myself. Those points upon 
which I told you not to expect too much of him, he 
has carefully avoided, without any examination. He has 
just left his brethren to work their way out the best way they 
could. But those points upon which, he told you not to 
expect too much from me, have been taken up and examined 
in regular order, and Universalism set in the shade. You 
will notice all this, h shows at whose door the trouble lies, 

The gentleman has never got clear of his admission made 
in his tirst speech, that he "believes that improving or 
neglecting to imptove our talents in this world, will in some 
degree, effect our condition" in the world to come. I told 
him that he would repent of the admission for many years to 
come. He would not believe me. But you have now seen 
that it has already haunted him like the ghost did the super* 
stitious in former years. Yes, after twisting, turning, and ma- 
neuvering every way he can, still it haunts him, and had he 
only the power to call it back, it would most assuredly never 
gain utterance. But the thing has gone from him, and 
he cannot call it back. I tried to show him and his brethren 
that be was right, and consequently, that they need not be so 
much excited about it : lor the Savior referred the effectsof the 
improvement and neglecting to improve our talents in this 
world, to the world to come; but he will not have the Savior 
with him. but routines his words to the present state. But [ 



325 



TKEOLO&ICAL DISCISSION, 



cannot see into the propriety of this. Can he reasonably 
refer the effect of improving or neglecting to improve our tal- 
ents in this life, to the future state, and then when the Savior 
does the same thing, limit the effects to this life I He never 
can ? and ail the plastering in creation, will never mend 
the matter, but will rather make it worse. 

He has admitted that the act of neglecting to improve 
a man's talents in this world, may subject him to some of the 
lower degrees of glory in heaven, and being thus in the rear 
when he enters heaven, he may thus continue perpetually, 1 
maintain then, that whatever subjected him to the lower 
degrees at the start, and consequently keeps him there 
perpetually, is an infinite evil, and as such deprives him 
of many degrees of happiness in the world without end. 
Thus the principle is granted, that by a man's own neglect m 
this life, he may forfeit happiness in the life to come- Then, 
you only need extend the same principle far enough to take 
a man from the lowest degree of happiness, a single step 
lower, and you are to where there is no happiness at all, but 
misery. But the concession is still wider than that. If the 
mere want of improvement, as he has now granted, in 
chis life, can subject a man to the lowest seat in heaven, what 
shall we say of him who not only lacks this good action, but 
spends his life in bad action— in opposition to the will of 
God ? He has not only neglected to do good, which the 
gentleman admits will subject him to the lowest degree 
in glory, but he has added to this all the evil action he could, 
which will, upon the same principle, reduce him below the 
lowest degree in happiness, and when he gets below all hap- 
piness, he is miserable. Out of thine own mouth, thou art 
condemned. 

Universalists have talked much about the Pharisaical spirit 
of other denominations. I could but think of this when the 
gentleman was picturing off with such an air of self-importance 
the exalted, station, the superlatively magnificent and com- 
manding position the Universalists are to occupy in heaven, 
transported high over all ; from which eminence, he appeared 
to anticipate, he will shortly look down with ineffable contempt 
and disdain upon all the poor publicans in creation, who are 
so ignorant as to stand at a distance, crying 64 God be merci- 
ful to me a sinner," not. knowing that great mystery, not only 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 



329 



"kept secret since the world began," to apostolic times, but 
not even revealed by Christ and all the apostles, that all liars, 
thieves, robbers, whoremongers, and villians of every grade 
shall be made holy and happy in heaven! How appropriately 
he might have prayed as follows : "God, I thank thee, that I 
am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or 
even as this publican. I fast thrice a week, I give tithes of 
all that I possess. 7 ' "Chanty nameth not itself, is not puffed 
up.' 9 "Let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall." 
"Be not high-minded" "Let us therefore fear lest a promise 
being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem 
to Come short of it." "Look diligently lest any man fail of 
the grace of God." I could but look upon the close of Mr. 
Manford's last speech as a kind of burlesque on his own 
brethren! He could not tell them gravely of their superior 
intelligence or moral worth, surely, They do not claim to be 
better than their neighbors are — they are satisfied with being 
as good. But I have no personal reflections to offer. It is 
the doctrine we have to do with. The gentleman may enjoy 
his imaginary elevation, but the Lord says, "he that exalteth 
himself shall be humbled." 

I lay it down as an indisputable fact that all human laws 
ever made have had their penalties, and that a law without 
any penalty would be no law at all. From this we get the 
consent of all the law-makers in all the world, that it is not 
only right that we should be punished for transgression, but 
that it is reasonable. To this my friend agrees, and quotes 
the words, "though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not 
go unpunished." This expression is as literally true as any 
other found in all the bible. Not only the general consent 
of mankind decided that man ought to be punished for 
crime, but that for some crimes he ought to be punished with 
the severest punishment in the power of man to inflict. 

Well I now ask the question, does an adequate punishment 
for all sins committed in this life take place before death? 
Every man of reason is bound to say ko. Suppose a man 
has committed the most aggravated murder, and while his hands 
are yet stained with the blood of innocence, he is stricken 
with a shock of lightning and thus taken out of the world 
without feeling the first pang of punishment? Every man 
of reason knows that in such ('uses no adequate punish- 



330 



THEOLOG-ICAL DISCUSSION, 



ment is inflicted m this life, yet my friend admits that he 
shall not go unpunished. Then he must be punished after 
death. 1 defy him to escape the conclusion. 

For, such crimes as I have alluded to, by the general con- 
sent of mankind, are punished as long as it is in the power of 
man to punish, and the only reason why a punishment of 
greater duration is not inflicted, is because it is not in 
the power of man to inflict it. The idea of a punishment 
of great duration, is not repugnant to the reason of mankind 
then. It is further to be observed that the time during which 
any one is engaged in the commission of a crime, has noth- 
ing to do with the duration of the punishment: for some crimes 
committed in the shortest time, we inflict punishment of the 
greatest duration. This is not at all contrary to the common 
sense of mankind, but accords with it. What goes further 
to show that punishment of great duration is reasonable, is 
the fact that the mischief done in a short time by the trans- 
gressor, is of such great duration. The gentleman has ad- 
mitted that the effects of neglecting to improve our talents in 
life will follow us into the resurrection state and by so doing 
has virtually admitted that they will never cease. If then, 
as he has now admitted, our conduct in this life will affect 
the heavenly state perpetually, and if a man shall deter- 
mine to act through his whole life in such a way as shall affect 
the happiness of tbe eternal state perpetually, where is there 
any thing unreasonable in his being punished perpetually? 

Look at the consequences that may follow the conduct of 
one wicked man, and then ask yourself if it is unreasonable 
that Almighty God wou^d inflict an endless punishment upon 
such, and thus make him an example to men and angels 
forever and ever. How many countless millions would it take 
to tell the injury done the human race by one Mahomet? 
Rivers of innocent blood lift up the cry to God for vengeance, 
not in the pitiful tones of my friend, but in the language of 
the holy martyr and witnesses of Jesus, viz : u how long, O 
Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our 
blood on them that dwell on the earth. [Time term fed.] 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 



331 



MR, MAN FORD'S FOURTH SFEECft. 



Respected Auditors : 

Mr. Franklin complained of me, and I acknowledge justly, 
for overrunning my time, in my last speech ; but 1 had just 
so much, to say,[and 1 wished to say it while 1 was at it. But 
I promise not to do so this time. I shall probably fall short 
of my time in this speech, as much as I went beyond it in 
my last, which I will cheerfully give him; for honestly, my 
friends, J see but little in his last speech that demands a re- 
ply from me ! Indeed I hardly know where to begin ; for, 
as you are all aware, the most of his time was taken up in 
either describing to you my feelings and emotions, the un- 
happy condition in which 1 felt myself, how badly he had 
" used me up," &c, or in going over matters that have been 
gone over and over again, all this day, I may say — to all of 
which, it does seem to me, it is hardly necessary forme to 
reply ! j [ He has said nothing new on these points — nothing 
but what he has said before, two or three times, and nothing 
but what I have fairly, and I think successfully replied to. 
Were 1 to take up your time in replying to them again in 
detail, he would probably repeat over again just what he has 
said before, and would tell you he had refuted me — that I 
had failed, &c. 

And what is still stranger, is, that he has not advanced a 
single step since his previous speech ! Not a new argument, 
not a new proof-text, did he advance in his last speech ! 
The presumption is that he is through — that he has done all 
he can do. And what has he done ! I only assert what 
you all know, when 1 say he has introduced but barely one 
proof-text, and that is the passage in|the 25th of Matthew ! 
Previous to introducing this passage, he wandered from the 
point, trying to pro\ethis, that, and the other, which, it 
proved, could have but little or no bearing on the question 
at issue — the endless punishment of the wicked. I fmaJly 
succeeded in bringing him to the point ; he set down his 
stakes ot* the passage; ki These shall go away into < i verlast- 



33* 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



ing punishment, but the righteous into life eternal, ? '— and 
said on this he relied as proof direct in favor of his proposi- 
tion. To a consideration of this passage, I devoted a con- 
siderable portion of my last speech ; in which I believe 1 
showed clearly and incontrovertibly that the passage not only 
cannot be relied on to teach the doctrine of endless punish • 
mem, but that it has reference to events which have long 
since transpired. I showed this, first, by a reference to the 
meaning of the original word rendered everlasting in the 
passage, and second, by a consideration of the passage in 
iis connection, ascertaining thereby its true meaning. 

And what has Mr. Franklin said in refutation of my ar- 
guments ? Yes, what has he said! Why, simply, that in- 
stead of giving you the definition of aionion, the word ren- 
dered everlasting, I confined myself to an entirely different 
word ! Now, this is all sheer humbuggery, and affected ig- 
norance! He knows better. I first took up the word aion, 
the noun from which aionion is derived, and shewed its de- 
finition by an appeal to a long list of authorities. This was 
the proper course. I might have gone further back and taken 
up the root of the word aei, from which axon is derived ; 
and I intended to do so, should it become necessary : for this 
is the only true way of getting at the meaning of doubtful 
words. I showed that aion did not mean endless— that its 
proper meaning was "age," "indefinite duration/' &c. 1 
also laid it down as a rule which cannot be denied, and 
which Mr. Franklin did not pretend to deny, that no adjec- 
tive can mean more than the noun from which it is derived ; 
and consequently that as aionion is the adjective derived 
from aion. it could not and did not of itself, mean endless. 
I deny that aion and aionion are two different words: they 
are but different forms of the same word, the one being the 
noun andHhe other the adjective. And to get at the mean- 
ing of an adjective, it is customary, and it is proper and 
right, first to obtain the meaning of the noun from which it 
is derived. And it is shown, as it was in my last, that the 
noun does not mean endless. 1 defy the world to show that 
the adjective has that meaning ! It cannot be done. No 
adjective can mean more than its noun. This argument the 
gentleman did not touch, nor attempt to touch ! 

Rut 1 did not confine myself to the noun, as he said : alter 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 



giving the definition of aion from some sixteen or eighteen 
different lexicons, commentators and divines, among whom 
are Donnegan, Parkhurst, Priestley, Watts, and Alexander 
Campbell — and ascertaining beyond doubt or possibility of 
mistake that its proper and radical meaning is limited or in- 
definite duration — an age or dispensation — I gave yon the 
admissions of several eminent theologians and believers in 
endless punishment, that the adjective form of the word did 
not, and could not, necessarily mean endless duration. Among 
these are Drs. Watts and Macknight— the latter of which I 
will here read again, as it may have escaped my friend's at- 
tention, and as Macknight is universally acknowledged by 
his friends to be good authority. Let it be understood that 
he was a believer in the doctrine of endless punishment, 
and that while trying to prove this doctrine from these very 
words, bet makes this admission. It is on this account the 
more valuable. Truth compelled him to decide against his 
own favorite doctrine. He says: " These words — aion and 
aionion — being ambiguous, are always to be understood 
according to the nature and circumstances of the things to 
which they are applied." Again he says: 44 1 must be so 
candid as to acknowledge, that the use of these terms, for- 
ever, eternal and everlasting, in other passages of scripture, 
shows that they who understand these words in a limited 
sense, when applied to punishment, put no forced interpre- 
tation upon them. " Here my friends, is authority, and good 
authority, on the word aionion. Universalists then, when 
they understand these words in a limited sense, when applied 
to punishment, put no forced construction upon them — they 
understand them in their natural and proper meaning. 

Mr. Franklin wished to know why I did not give you 
Greenfield's and Clarke's definition of aionion ! I will tell 
you. Those men were partiaiists, and believers in endless 
punishment ; and notwithstanding their definition of the 
noun aion, is age, limited duration, &c, they think aionion 
means endless — and why ? Simply because they wish to 
prove their notion of endless punishment by it ! They were 
theologians ; and in defining these words, they do not give 
their original and classic meaning, so much as what they 
think is their meaning in the New Testament. I do not 
take these men's definition of controverted words and pas^ 



334 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



sages, except where they testify against themselves ! A 
man's testimony in favor of himself is not admissible ; but 
when he testifies against himself, his testimony is doubly 
valuable— for no man, it is presumed, would testify against 
himself, except compelled by truth and candor to do so. 
This is the reason why I rely upon these men when they 
testify in my favor, and reject them when they testify against 
me ; for when they do this, they testify in favor of them- 
selves, and I cannot take their testimony. I care not what 
Clarke, or Greenfield, or any one else says in favor of end- 
less punishment; but when they say anything against it, I 
set it down as valuable, for it is presumed they would not 
say any thing against it, unless compelled by facts to do so. 

But notwithstanding Mr. Franklin objects to my going to 
the noun to ascertain the meaning of the adjective, he does 
what amounts to the same thing. In Heb. 7, he quotes the 
passage, " Who is made, not after the law of a criminal 
commandment, but after the power of an endless life," and 
then read the next verse : " Thou are a priest forever after 
the order of Melchisedek," because used as synonymous 
with that word. This position is false, as I abundantly 
showed in my last speech. The word forever is not used as 
synonymous with endless. In the first instance, endless is 
applied to the life of Christ : he was made, not a priest, but 
was made a living being, the Son of God, " after the power 
of an endless life." Then in the next verse his priesthood is 
referred to : " Thou art a priest forever after the order of 
Melchisedek." This fact was made so plain, and the gentle- 
man's position so completely exposed in my last, that his 
only remedy was to take this position that Christ's priesthood 
will be endless! And therefore, as his priesthood will be 
endless, of course forever must mean endless ! I will route 
the gentleman from his position, however, before I sit down. 

But what I wish you to notice here is, that the word ren- 
dered forever is not aionion. According to his own logic, 
he has gone to an entirely different word to get the meaning 
of aionion ! The word, or rather phrase is eis ton aiona — 
being the adverbial form of the noun axon. It is no nearer 
aionion than aion is ; and instead of going to aiona for the 
meaning of aionion, it would be far more proper to go to 
aionion for the meaning aiona ! The gentleman seems to 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 



335 



do every thing, and have every tiling wrong end foremost ! 
But there is no other way, as I before stated, of obtaining the 
meaning of either aionion or aion, except by going to the 
noun from which they are derived ; or by going still further 
back to the original roots, aei and oh. This the gentleman 
dare not do ! You see now what his great bluster about my 
going to a different word to get the meaning of aionion 
amounts to ! It was all grmmon, and only said for effect ! 
Besides this he has done the same thing : but, unlike me, he 
has failed. 

But as the gentleman intimates that he cares but little 
about human authorities, I will give him something from the 
Bible. Macknight, you recollect, says: 44 The use of the 
terms forever, everlasting, &c.,in other passages of Scripture, 
shows that they who understand these words in a limited 
sense, when applied to punishment, put no forced interpreta- 
tion upon them." This he says he is bound to acknowledge. 
Let us therefore refer to 44 the use of these words in other 
passages of the Scripture," and see how the case stands. 
This, after all, is the proper way to interpret Scripture lan- 
guage and phrases. Let the Old Testament interpret the 
New, says Alexander Campbell, as 1 showed you while on 
the first proposition. 

1st. Everlasting. " And I will give unto thee and thy 
seed, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession" 
—Gen. 17, 8. 

44 And I will make of thee a multitude of people, and will 
give this land (Canaan) to thy seed after thee, for an ever- 
lasting possession." — Gen. 48, 4. 

Now was this possession to be endless f No, for it has 
ceased long ago ! But let us read some more. 44 Unto the 
utmost bounds of the everlasting hills" — 44 The everlasting 
mountains were scattered." — Hab. 3, G. The gentleman 
believes that the everlasting hills and mountains will all be 
destroyed when the world comes to an end ! 

44 For their annointing shall surely be an everlasting priest- 
hood." — Exod. 40, 15. 44 And he (Phinehas) shall have it, 
and his seed after him, even the covenant, for an everlasting 
preisthood." — Num. 25, 13. 44 And this shall be an ever- 
lasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the 
children of Israel once every year." — Lev. 16, 34. Was 



336 



T H F: T. OQ 1 C A L JHS C U S S ! ON . 



the priesthood to be of endless duration ? or has it not long 
since been abolished by the priesthood of Christ ? Such my 
friends, is a sample of the Bible use of this word. Let us 
now read something about another word, which Mr. Franklin 
thinks means endless duration. 

2d. Forever. "Be (Solomon) shall build me an house, 
and I will establish it forever" — 1 Chron. 17, 12. This 
house although established forever, has long since been torn 
down and destroyed ! " Forjhe land r which thou seest, to 
thee, (Abram) will I give it, and to thy seed forever." — 
Gen. 13, 15. "You shall keep it (the passover) a feast 
by an ordinance' forever." — Exod. 12. 14. Was the observ- 
ance of the passover to be of endless duration ? " They 
shall be your bondsmen forever." — Lev. 25, 46. Were they 
to be bondsmen throughout endless duration ? "I went to 
the bottom of the mountains ; the earth with her bars was 
about me forever " — that is, three days ! — Jonah 2, 6. " The 
righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein forever." — 
Ps. 37, 29. Are the righteous to dwell in a land endlessly 1 
" And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and 
he shall serve him forever" — that is, as long as he live. — 
Exod. 21, 6. " And they shall dwell in the land that I have 
given my servant Jacob, wherein your fathers have dwelt, 
and they shall dwell therein, forever ; and my servant David 
shall be their prince forever." — Ezek. 27, 25. This needs 
no comment. " But Judah shall dwell forever, and Jerusa- 
lem from generation to generation" — from genca to genea. 
"For I have told him that I will judge his house forever, for 
the iniquity which he knoweth." Will the Almight be end- 
lessly judging the house of Eli ? And if to judge forever 
does not mean endless judgment, why should to punish for- 
ever mean endless punishment ? Can any one tell 1 Paul 
writing to Philemon says of Onesimus, — " For perhaps he 
departed for a season, that thou shouldst receive him forever" 
—not endlessly, surely ! 

I might go on and occupy my whole time in referring to 
passages of this kind, where these words are undoubtedly 
used in a limited sense ; and then not refer to one half of the 
places. Indeed this seems to be the most common use of 
them throughout the Bible, and it is a question with me, 
whether there is a solitary place in the Bible where either of 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 



them strictly denotes eternity, or endless duration ! Let it 
be remembered that in all of these places to which I have re* 
ferred, the words rendered everlasting and forever* — aionion 
and aiona in the original Greek, are the same words which Mr. 
Franklin relies on to prove his favorite doctrine of endless 
sin and suffering ! 

And now. from the fact that in so many places in the Bible, 
3 ea, almost universally, these words are used in a limited 
sense, which cannot be denied, I lay it down as a rule which 
admits of no denial, that the common Bible use of them is 
limited, indefinite duration: and I call on Mr. F. to show 
why we should depart from the primary and Bible use of' 
these words, when applied to punishment 1 

This he has 10 do or give up the controversy. I afHrm 
what I know to be true, that these words can neve?' signify 
endless duration, unless the things to which they are applied 
necessarily of themselves require such a signification! — 
When applied to Clod and the duration of his throne and ex- 
istence, they may mean endless; yet. in this case it is doubt- 
ful whether they ever have that meaning. Says the cele- 
brated Scarlett, "When the reader meets with the phrase 
'doHion Gad, he will understand thereby that God reigns 
ihroughout all the aions, or ages: whether past, present, or to 
■ v»:ne: and amnion spirit is the spirit of (rod which has presi- 
ded over the church in ail aions. or ages." But, one thing is 
'•ertain. if it means endless in such cases, it is because the 
- subject to which it is applied necessarily requires it, and not 
from any force !in the adjective. This being a fact which 
no man can successfully controvert, it follows that before 
Mr. P. can claim any assistance from the phrase aionion 
jutnislunent, he must show some good reason from the na- 
ture and character of the punishment itself, why it should 
b s endless. I deny that there is anything in the nature of 
punishment, human or divine, which requires that it should 
he endless : nay. I go further — I deny the possibility of the 
thing!— First, because no being could endure endless punish- 
ment — it would gradually give way under it: and finally 
c.niv' h) exist. Endless punishment, therefore, is an impos- 
sibiiiiv. Second, because the word rendered|punishment in 
die text ( fcolasis) forbids such an idea. It means to chastise. 
to punish for the object of reformation. The first and pri- 
22 



55 S 



THEOLOGICAL DISCISSION: 



mary meaning given by Greenfield is chastisement. You 
may have an aionion chastisement, a long, enduring chas- 
tisement ; but, to talk of an endless chastisement is a soli- 
cism ! 

A few more words on this subject and I pass to something 
else, 1st. Aionion and aiona rendered everlasting and for- 
ever, are derived from aion, the noun. 2d. 1 affirm, and 
have proved, that axon does not mean endless. 1 therefore 
lay down the following syllogism, to which I invite the gen- 
tleman's special attention, and which I challenge him to re- 
fute ! 

1. No adjective nor adverb can mean more than the noun 
from which it is derived. 

2. But aionion and aiona arc derived from axon, which does 
not mean endless ; 

3. Therefore, aionion and aiona do not mean endless. 

Here I set down my stakes, with assurance of perfect se- 
curity ; and the gentleman can either come up to the work now 
and make an attempt to defend his cause, or do as he did on 
the phrase "this generation" — silently back out, and thus 
let it all go by the board ! 

The gentleman affirms that Christ's reign as Priest and 
King is to be endless. He does this in order to show that 
the word forever means endless, because it is said "He was 
made a priest forever after the order of Melchisedek." All 
I have to say, is, that he and Paul are at direct antipodes on 
this point; — you can believe which you please. Paul says in 
1 Cor. 15 : "For he (Christ) must reign TILL he hath put 
all enemies under his feet." ii ow much longer will he reign 
after he has put all enemies under his feet ? Hear what the 
apostle says : "And when all things shall be subdued unto 
him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto Him 
that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." — 
So, when all things shall be subdued unto Christ, then his 
reign and his priesthood will cease, will be at an end — at any 
rate his priesthood, for there will be no more occasion for a 
priest; all will have been subdued, and the lion also himself 
will become subject unto the Father, and God be all in all. 
So much, then, for being "made a priest forever" It only 
means throughout, or during the New Dispensation — the 
reign of the Messiah. 



ENf>LE£S ?unishment, 



353 



In attempting to controvert the position that " the reign 
of Christ will come 10 an end at the resurrection," the gen- 
tleman refers to Rev. 5: 13, which i said referred to the 
resurrection state ; and says he is "sure Christ is there rep- 
resented as sitting upon his throne." Now, 1 am "sure" 
Christ is not so represented at all ! Let us read the passage : 
"And every creature which is in heaven and on the earth, 
and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and ail that 
is in them, heard I saying, blessing, and honor, and glory, 
and power be unto HIM that sitteth upon the throne, and 
unto the Lamb." It is God, and not the Lamb, or Christ, that 
is "represented as sitting upon the throne!" This was quite 
a mistake ! 

While I think of it I will just notice another failure the gen- 
tleman made, although it is not of much consequence. In my 
last I challenged him to produce another place in the Bible 
besides 1 Cor 15: 50, where 'kingdom,' 'kingdom of heaven,' 
or "kingdom of God," means Heaven itself. He says he is 
ready to make the trial, and in making the trial, refers to 2 
Pet. 1 : 1 1 — "For so an entrance shall be administered unto 
you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord 
and Savior Jesus Christ." Now, this was said but a few 
years previous to the destruction of the Jewish state and the es- 
tablishment of Christ's kingdom on earth; and the simple, un- 
mistakable meaning of the apostle is, that all who at that time 
lived, if they continued in faith and good works, "an entrance 
should be ministered unto them abundantly into the everlasting 
kingdom of Christ" — the kingdom which he was then to set 
up and establish on earth. Nothing else is intended. 1 bold- 
ly affirm'th at if the passage does not mean the reign or king' 
dom of Christ on earth, then there is not a passage in the 
Bible which has such a meaning! The thing is so plain that 
it needs no argument to prove it. The gentleman's "trial" 
therefore, is a— failure. 

What he said about my making God "the author of lies," 
is too low, mean, and contemptible to need a serious reply ! 
He avoids the true issue on this point; and, in order to shield 
himself, endeavors to draw your attention by telling you I say 
God is "the author of lies !" I said no such thing, and he 
knows it! and I hold him up here before this audience as a 
man who can villify. misrepresent, and pervert arguments 



S40 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



which he cannot meet — willingly and with malice afore- 
thought! I scorn such conduct ! I look upon it as childish 
and contemptible to the last degree ! Why did he not meet 
my argument like a man and not as a demagogue ? I have 
said that God is the first cause of everything— and, therefore, 
in some sense or other, he must be the author of everything. 
And why did I say this ? Because I maintained that if end- 
less punishment be true, then God is the author of it, and 
consequently, the author of an infinite evil ! For God made 
man just what he is, and if there be an endless hell, God 
made that, and if there be a devil. God made him also, (or 
he is self-existent,) for k hc made everything that was made.' 
Now, if man's conduct, or sin, plunges him into interminable 
ruin for which there is no remedy, then God is the author 
of it, for he saw beforehand the end from the beginning, 
and seeing this, he made man with a perfect knowledge thai 
his existence would terminate in endiess and irretrievable 
ruin ! But foreknowledge with God, as to the termination or 
results of his own works, is the same as forcordination ; and 
therefore, the doctrine of endles punishment being an end, 
reflects upon God's character, and robs him not only of his 
glory, but of the last particle of goodness ! But to return. 

Jf a man makes a machine which in its operation, proves 
injurious to community, perhaps destructive to human life, 
that man is in one sense, the author of evil — yet he may be 
one of the best men in the world, having the least evil inten- 
tion towards any one. So with Go*l. He has made many 
a wonderful machine! capable of doing good or evil, and 
instituted certain laws by which to reward him for his good, 
and punish him for his evil deeds, so that there may be 
as much good, and as little evil in the world as possible. 
Man sins. God is not the author of his sins, in any other 
sense than he is the author of man : and that he is the author 
of man, no one denies. Mr. Franklin believes this, and he 
knows that 1 do not make God the author of sin. in any other 
sense than this — which he himself believes. God does 
not, and cannot sin; for he is infinitely holy! but he has 
made man, who does sin, and this is all 1 eon tend for. He is 
therefore, responsible for man's conduct, the same as a par- 
ent is responsible for the conduct of his children; otherwise 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 



341 



God would not punish and reward man for his conduct. Sin 
and evil, I maintain, are but incidental to mortal existence ; 
but should they finally eventuate in infinite evil, in end- 
less sinning, then God will be responsible for it, he will 
be the author of it — for it will be an end, an eventuation of 
his own government and works; so if endless punishment be 
true, there is no w 7 ay to avoid the conclusion that God 
will be the author of it, and consequently, the author of 
an infinite evil ! 

Now let the gentleman come forward and meet this argu- 
ment, or hold his peace, and not take up sin in the abstract, 
and accuse me again of saying that God is the author of it ! 
I say not that God is the author of sin, in the abstract ; he is 
tlie author of man, and man is the author of sin. Should the 
gentleman say again that "the devil" is the author of sin, ail 
1 ask of him is to tell us who is the author of the devil ? He 
said "the devil was a liar from the beginning;-' but some 
people say that in the "beginning," he was an angel in 
heaven ! ] would like some light on this subject. 

Rut there is one other subject I had almost forgotten, and 
which I must notice before I sit down. I allude to the sub- 
ject of eternal life, as used in the New Testament, as espe- 
cially in the gentleman's proof- text from Matt. 25. He 
assumes the position, (I say assumes, for he cannot prove it,) 
that it means the immortal life of the believer, in the future 
world. This. 1 deny, and in my last I showed clearly 
by reference to other places, where the phrase occurs, thai it 
means the spiritual life of the kingdom or gospel — that it is 
the life which the believer enjoys in this world. In proof of 
his position, he says 1 admitted to him in a private conversa- 
tion, that "eternal life" does not extend beyond this world, &c. 
Now, whether I did or not, is of no consequence in this de- 
hate. And if I did make such admission to him in "private 
conversation," he has done what no true gentleman would do 
in thus bringing it into this debate ! Bui I now deny, so far 
as this debate is concerned, of ever making such admission ! 
I am losing confidence in the man every speech he makes, 
both as a gentleman and a christian. 1 tell him as 1 did in 
relation to another subject — it is none of his business what I 
say in ''private conversation ;" let him attend to what I say in 
this debate, and he will have enough to do. 



34£ 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION, 



I have now replied 10 all the points in the gentleman's la*t 
speech which, in my candid opinion, was deserving of a 
reply. The most of his speech was made up of assertions, 
scarcely ever touching my arguments. The passage I quoted 
from Isa. 34, which refers to the desolation of Idumea, 
and speaks of the land becoming "burning pitch," the "dust 
turned into brimstone," and the "smoke thereof going up 
forever," he has paid no attention to. Doubtless he will not. 
Perhaps he will pay no attention to the numerous passages I 
have introduced in my present speech, in reference to the 
words "everlasting" and "forever !" We shall see. 

The most of his speech being made up of assertions 
and repetitions, I refer you and him to my last speech for a 
formal reply to all that has not been referred to again in this. 
The arguments of my last speech, I conceive, have not been 
touched ; and until he can say something mote than he did in 
his last, they must still remain untouched. What he said 
about the punishment of sin, and the reasonableness and jus- 
tice in the idea of its "great duration," because the effects of 
some men's wickedness is of long duration, all vanishes 
when you recollect that in one short hour, the wickedest 
man can repent, be baptised, obtain remission, and escape all 
punishment ! What now becomes of the "effects" and "con- 
sequences of a man's sins? Suppose Tom Paine had re- 
pented and got religion just before he died, what would 
have been done about punishing him throughout "great dura- 
tion," to compensate for the "mischief done in a short time" 
by writing his Infidel book ? You may " look at the conse- 
quences that may follow the conduct of one wicked man" 
and you may reason or imagine yourself into the belief that 
" it is reasonable" that God should punish him for a "great 
duration," or endlessly ; but alas! he repents before he dies, 
and goes to heaven ! Where now are your "consequences" of 
his wickedness? They still remain. Where now is his 
punishment due for these "consequences?" O, pshaw! 
This is all I will say. The balance of my time I give 
him. 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT, 



343 



MR. FRANKLIN'S CLOSING SPEECH. 



Beloved Fellow-Citizens : 

I now rise before you to make my closing speech on the 
important question now before us, after which I shall leave 
the question for every man to decide for himself in this great 
and intelligent community. I shall first pay a little attention 
to Sir. Manford's last speech, and then proceed to recapitu- 
late my argument, and place it before you in as clear and 
forcible a manner as I can. 

I cheerfully agree with the gentleman that he did not know 
where to begin in his last speech, and so far as any argument 
is concerned, his part of the debate would have been about 
as strong if he had not began at all. He says that he only 
asserts what you all know when he asserts that I have only 
introduced one proof text. This will do for a man who had 
talked as loudly about misrepresentation as he has done, but 
any other man could not talk so and be believed ; and it may 
be that he will not be believed by the time I have finished my 
recapitulation, or even that he is not believed now. I have 
introduced more than one half dozen scriptures to which he has 
attempted no reply whatever. In addition to this, a goodly 
number he has tried to examine and failed. Yet he has the 
assurance to stand up and face this audience and tell them 
that I have introduced but one proof text. The truth of the 
matter is, that the one proof text, Mat. 25, which seems to 
pierce him so horribly, has proved invulnerable, and has ter- 
rified him so that he can think of nothing else. But he tells 
you that he has finally succeeded in bringing me to the point. 
That put me in mind of the old astronomer who had watched 
the motions of the earth until it had performed its annual 
revolution, and reached the precise point where it had been 
just one year before, when he exclaimed to those about him, 
"we have succeeded in bringing it to the point at last." Just 
so Mr. M. succeeded in bringing me to the point at last, when 
I came to it of my own accord. But from the restlessness 
he has manifested, I should judge I was much closer to the 
point all the time than he desired, I know the meaning of 



344 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



all that long parade. The object of it is merely to fill up 
time, and not to get me any nearer to the point. He, in truth, 
only dreaded it all the time, because he could not get me off 
from the point. 

Mr. M. still tries to escape discussion on the meaning of 
the Greek word aionion, but there is no escape for him here. 
I cannot let him off to another word ; yet I confess, that I feel 
for him, for he is conscious that he must cheat this audience 
some way, and get them to take the definition of another 
word, in the place of the word in dispute. Well, then, 
what is the advantage in going to it ? Why not give the peo- 
ple honestly and candidly, the definition of aionion. and 
not go off for the definition of another word ? The reason 
is at hand. You know the definition of that word is not ihe 
same in our lexicon ; and you want the people to take the 
definition of aion. in the place of the definition of aionion. 
for no other reason under heaven, only because you know it 
is not the same. What reason have vou given for wanting- the 
people to take the definition of tiion in the pfcce of the defi- 
nition of aionion 1 None under the heavens, but your bare 
assertion, that the two words have the same meaning; and 
this assertion is not correct, or the lexicographers would have 
defined both words alike, which you know they have not 
done. 

The effort made by Mr. M. to escape the very word used by 
our Lord, and impose the definition of another word on this 
people, is one of the best evidences I have found, of his con- 
sciousness that he must fail, if he cannot get clear of the 
meaning of that word. . 

He tells you that he lays it down as a rule, that no adjec- 
tive can mean more than the noun from which it is derived, 
and that I have not denied it. Well, I do deny it most posi- 
tively, and I say further, that it is no rule at all, but simply his 
bare assertion. How has he proved it ? He has not proved 
it all; but simply asserted it. The fact that the lexicons define 
two word differently, is sufficient evidence that they have dif- 
ferent meanings, with men who regard evidence. 

After all the gentleman's long parade in quoting Dr. A. 
Clarke, and telling what a great, learned, and good man he 
was, he now represents him as dishonest, because lie decides 
against him ; and accuses him with doing it to sustain his 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT, 345 



position. 1 tolcl you I would prove his sincerity in quoting 
Clarke. With him a man is great, learned, and good, while 
he can pervert his language into the service to prove Univer- 
salism, but the moment his language is quoted against him, he 
is dishonest!! He says he does not take the testimony 
of great men, only "where they testify against themselves.'' 
That is, he does not take their testimony only where they tes- 
tify what they did not believe ! ! 

in his last speech, Mr. M. set off to give us a long list of 
places where the word eternal is used in a limited sense ; but 
he simply did so to fill up his speech, for I have stated 
that the word is frequently used in a limited sense. I have 
also mentioned the fact that the word endless is used in a lim- 
ited sense, and so is the word perpetual and any other word 
in human speech. But he tells us, that lie doubts whether 
the word means endless any place in the Bible. Well, I can 
very soon remove all doubts on that point, in the mind 
of every candid man present. When we read of "the ever- 
lasting God," the word everlasting, expresses the duration of 
the existence of God, and nothing else. The word in that place 
is used in an unlimited sense, beyond a doubt, When we read 
of "everlasting life," "eternal life," &c, the word expresses 
unlimited duration. To avoid this, Uni verbalists have set oiT 
to prove that eternal or everlasting life is in this world ; but 
this avoids not the difficulty; for they dare not any it will end. 
The word eternal, when applied to life, expresses its duration ; 
and means just the same as our Savior did, when he said, 
"He that believeth on me shall never die." Will eternal life 
end ? He dare not say it will. Well, what is the word that 
expresses its duration? The Greek aionion, translated everlast- 
ing. Everlasting life is unending life, beyond all dispute. This. I 
showed in my last speech, on Matt. 25 . 42; but the gentle- 
man found it convenient to pass it by silently, and made not 
one solitary remark upon it. 1 did not succeed in "bringing 
him to the point." 

He calls upon me, to tell why we should not take the pri- 
mary meaning of the word aionion, I was just about to ask 
him that very question. J just open my lexicon, and turn over 
honestly to the very word used by our Lord, and take the first 
and literal definition of the word, and read it out to the people, 
Now I want to know why he does not do the same. The re a- 



346 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



son is at hand. This straight forward course will not sustain 
his position. He must try to get you to take another word, 
and if that will not do, you must not believe the lexicons, but 
take his assertion , in opposition to them . But I spare him here, 
for he feels his nakedness. 

The gentleman has finally found an unanswerable argu- 
ment. Endless punishment is impossible. But where is the 
proof? Why, Mr. M. says, it is impossible. You need not quote 
the words of Jesus, that "all things are possible with God/' 
for Mr. Manford has proved by one of his infallible assertions 
that endless punishment is impossible. It cannot be, therefore, 
because it is impossible, and it is impossible therefore, because 
it cannot be ! That is the way to prove things. 

The word kolasis, translated 'punishment, means to chastise, 
to punish for the object of reformation, he thinks. That 
little chastisement that fell upon a million and a-half of 
Jews, who washed the streets of Jerusalem, with their blood. 
I suppose produced a great reformation in those upon whom 
it fell ! A sorer punishment than death without mercy 
will be a chastisement that will follow some men into another 
world, for their reformation ! Grand logic this Universalian 
logic ! ! 

The gentleman took the trouble to tell you that 1 let the ex- 
pression, "this generation, " pass silently. That is only 
another of his blunders, in his confusion. I made a state- 
ment of the proper meaning of this generation, and it stands 
yet, untouched by Mr. M., except his bare assertion that my 
statement was not correct. My statement was one that I 
knew every man would find correct who would look into 
a lexicon, and not consider it worth while to repeat it 
over again. I stated that the first definition of the Greek 
word genea, translated generation, Matt. 24: 34, was family. 
This, Mr. M. positively denied. Well, 1 now say with my 
lexicon before my eyes, that I was correct, as any man 
can see, who will be at the trouble of looking. 

Mr. Manford now denies making God the author of sin, 
only in one sense, and accuses me of misrepresenting him. 
If I misrepresented him, I did it in quoting his own words , 
but the truth of the matter is, I did not misrepresent him 
at all ; as you may see from his last speech* In one breath 
he denies that God is the author of sin, and in the next 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 347 

breath declares that he is the author of sin in some sense, and 
tells that I believe the same. I deny it roundly ; I believe no 
such blasphemous nonsense. And I deny the outrageous 
notion that God is responsible for man's sins. He talks about 
the character of God, but what kind of a character does he 
represent the Almighty as possessing ? Why God is the 
author of sin; yet he punishes man with death without 
mercy; and even a sorer punishment than death, without 
mercy for committing sin. Yet he tells you that he is good 
and his tender mercies are over all ! As it respects endless 
punishment, he has not proved that it is an evil, and his 
asserting it over and over, eight or ten times in a speech, doss 
not prove h to be an evil. But he has acknowledged on the 
other hand* the importance of knowing it* if the doctrine be 
true, that we may escape it. How does lie expect to escape it 
by knowing it? The idea is, by being a good man— by 
oneying the gospel. In this, he has virtually acknowledged, 
that the belief of the doctrine of endless punishment would 
make him better, and all better, in order to escape it. And 
that is the true state of the case. The doctrine of endless 
punishment has more power in subduing rebellious spirits, 
without any of the other high and holy considerations of the 
gospel, than all the Universalism in the world. This, Mr. 
Manford felt, when he spoke of the importance of knowing 
it, if it be true. 

Mr. Manford, it appears, can see no difference between that 
man who repents — reforms his life, acknowledges his sinful- 
ness and turns to God, and that man who continues an obdu- 
rate and an impenitent sinner to the last. The effect of the 
wicked conduct of the one, he allows is going on in the 
world equal with the other. Had Paine publicly and man- 
fully confessed his error only one year before he died, it 
would have stripped his infidel book of nine- tenths of its 
power. And if Mr. Manford would give up his Universalism, 
and do all he could the remainder of his life, to counteract his 
former teaching, as some men have done, the effect of his 
operations would be very different on the world, from what 
it will, if he pursues his course on regularly until death. 
And if he finds himself mistaken, as he certainly will, lie 
will find his condition vastly different when he will stand be = 
fare God. But I have already given more attention to 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



his last speech, than I intended. Without further ceremony , 
I shall proceed to review the argument. 

1. Oar proposition reads as follows: "Do the scrip- 
tures teach that those who die in disobedience to the gospel, 
will suffer endless punishment?" This proposition I divided 
into three, though greatly to the annoyance of Mr. Manford. 
The first of these was that those who die in disobedience to 
the gospel, will never be saved. The second was that 
they will be punished after death. And the third was that the 
punishment will be endless. Having thus marked out my 
course, I proceed to the infallible oracles of God, beginning 
with Matt. 7: 13, 14, and its parallel, Luke 13: 23, 29. 
From these passages, it -was shown that the very question our 
Universalian friends are always talking about, was presented 
to our Savior, in the following word : "Lord, are there few 
who shall be saved ?" In the place of informing those who 
asked this question, that all will be saved, the Lord proceeded 
to charge them to "strive to enter in at the strait gate," assu- 
ring them at the same time, that when once the Master of the 
house shall have arisen up and shut to the door, they should 
stand without crying. Lord, Lord, open unto us, and that he 
should order them to depart — they should not be able to 
enter in. 

Mr. M. contended that "the kingdom here," meant the 
church, and consequently, that some would strive to enter into 
the church, but shall not be able. I showed that this could 
not be, for the language of the Lord, relative to the church, 
is, "whosoever will, let him come," and "he that cometh to 
me, I will in nowise cast out" The next quibble Mr. 
M. made, was that if "the kingdom" meant heaven, then, the 
wicked go to heaven, and are cast out. But I showed that the 
wicked were to "stand without the door, and knock," and that 
it was from that position, withotrt the door, they were to 
be "thrust out," and that they had never been within. This 
passage, Mr. M. has tried hard to answer, but has made 
a most perfect failure, ft still stands in all its force, testify- 
ing that the wicked shall stand without the door, and knock, 
crying, Lord, Lord, open unto us. and shall strive to enter in 
but shall not be able. I have repeatedly called upon Mr. M. to 
point out the kingdom on this earth, where persons strived to 



ENDLESS rCNIoHMENT. 



349 



enter m, and were not able, This, he has not and he ran 
not do. 

2. My second argument was drawn from several passages 
which show the conditional it y of eternal salvation. Some 
of these 1 will repeat. Matt, 6: 19, the Lord commands us 
to "lay up treasure in heaven." Universal ism teaches, that 
all men shall have treasure in heaven, whether they lay it up 
as commanded or not. 1 Tim. 6 : 17. 19, was referred 
to for the purpose of showing that man must do good works, 
in order to secure a good foundation against the time to come 
and eternal life. But Universalism teaches that all men will 
have a good foundation against the time to come and eternal 
life, whether they do these good works or not. In Col. 3:1, 
we have a command to ^seek those things which are above, 
where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God." But if the 
doctrine of my friend be true, there is no force in such 
a command, for all men will have those things which are 
above, whether they seek for them or not. Bom. 7, 
was then referred to, as an evidence that in order that we have 
glory, honor, immortality, and eternal life, we must seek 
for them. In order to escape the force of this passage, Mr. M . 
contended that "glory, and honor, and immortality, and eter- 
nal life," are in this world. In order to do this, he took the 
position that the word translated immortality, is not the word 
thus translated in other places. This, we admitted: but 
we showed that it is the very word that is translated incorrup- 
tibility, some lour times in 1 Cor. 15, and if he brings the im- 
mortality of Rom. 2, into this world, he also, must bring the 
incorruption of 1 Cor. 15, into this world. 

Just so certain, then, as the " glory, honor, immortality 
and eternal life," Rom. 2: 7, is in the future world. Uni- 
versalism is gone. No argument from any other part of the 
Rble can save it. And if you put that which is indicated 
by each of these terms in this life, 1 should like to know 
what terms refer to the future state ! 1 quoted the words : 
* ; He that overcomeih shall be clothed in white raiment ; 
and 1 will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but 
I will confess his name before my Father, and before his 
angels." Rev. 3 : 5. In connection with this, I quoted 
the words : " To him that overcometh, will 1 grant to sit 
.with mo in my throne, even as I also overcame, and can sit 



550 



THEOLOGICAL DISCISSION. 



down with my Father in his throne/' Rev, 3 ; %\\. This 
language implies conditions as strongly as any language can. 
and asserts, to him who can and will appreciate the force of 
language, that he who does not overcome, shall not be 
clothed in white raiment, and his name shall be blotted out 
of the book of life, and I will not confess his name before 
my Father and his angels, and he shall not sit down with 
me in my throne. This passage, Mr. M. has not set aside 
and he cannot. It was further shown, that the Lord says. 
" He that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the 
wrath of God abided) on him." John 3: 36. This passage 
being true, my first position is sustained beyond the possibil- 
ity of a doubt. I called your attention to Heb. 2: 2, 3, to 
show that there is no escape from the punishment threat- 
ened in the gospel. From Heb. 3: 11, it was shown that 
God swore in his wrath thai the Israelites should not enter 
into his rest, in the earthly Canaan ; and at verse 1, chapter 
4. the apostle commands christians to " fear lest a promise 
being left us of entering into his rest, any of us should seem 
to come short of it." This rest remaining for the people of 
God. is that shadowed forth, by the entrance into the earthly 
Canaan, and from the expression of the apostle it is clear 
that a man may come short of it, or fail to enter into that 
rest. The words of Paul were further quoted and relied 
upon, Heb. 6 : 4, 6. " For it is impossible for those who 
were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, 
and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted 
the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 
if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repent- 
ance; seeing the}* crucify to themselves the Son of God 
afresh, and put him to an open shame." On this very clear 
and explicit statement of the apostle, he comments as fol- 
lows.: " For the earth that drinketh in the rain that cometh 
oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom 
it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God ; but that which 
beareth thorns and briars, is rejected ; whose end is to be 
burned." This passage received no attention from Mr. AL, 
for the very good reason that he knows that when God de- 
clares a thing to be impossiblo, it is no use to contend against 
it. But 1 quoted the apostle further, Heb. 1 1 : 26, 27, where 
he says, " If we sin wilfully after we have received the 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT: 



35! 



knowledge of the truth, there remaineth do more sacrifice 
for 6in, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment, and 
fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries. " On 
this, it was shown, the apostle gives his own comment, as 
follows : * 4 He that despised Moses' law, died without mercy 
under two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punish- 
ment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath 
trodden under loot the Son of God, and hath counted the 
blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified, an un- 
holy thing, and hath done despite unto the spirit of grace ? " 
This passage has received no attention from the gentleman, 
except his assertion that there can be a sorer punishment 
than death without mercy in this life. Heb. 12 : 14, 17 was 
quoted to show that we may fail of the grace of God, which 
passage my friend has not attempted to harmonize with his 
theory. Jude 12:3 was quoted to show that some men are 
compared to trees twice dead and plucked up by the roots. 
But this, too, has been passed in silence by Mr. M. To 
conclude this branch of the evidence, Rev. 22 : 13, 19 was 
quoted to show that by certain wicked conduct, a man's part 
may be taken out of the book of life and out of the things 
written it) it, and the plagues written in that book may be 
added to him. 

Now I ask again, as i did once before on this point, in the 
name of all reason, in view of the candor and faithfulness 
as well as the inflexibility of the Almighty, is it possible for 
any man to be saved, who has refused to " lay up treasure in 
heaven " — refused io" seek those things which are above, " 
would not % * follow peace with all men and holiness, without 
which no man shall see the Lord " — failed to " lay up agood 
foundation against the time to come, that he may lay hold 
on eternal life " — positively refused to i4 fear lest a promise 
being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should 
seem to come short of it — who would not strive to over- 
come as Jesus overcame, and thus sit clown with him in his 
Father's throne — the man whom " it is impossible to renew 
again," and who has " failed of the grace of God — whose 
end is to be burned " — for " whom there remaineth no more 
sacrifice for sin " — " in whom God will have no pleasure " — 
a "raging wave of the sea foaming out his own shame : 
twice dead and plucked up by the roots, for whom is re- 



352 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION, 



served the blackness of darkness forever for "whom 
nothing remains but a certain fearful looking for of judgment 
and fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries "— 
whose " part is taken out of the book of life, and out of the 
holy city, and out of the things written in the book of life,'' 
who shall suffer a " sorer punishment than death without 
mercy " — for whom there is no " repentance, though sought 
with tears," and who shall stand without and knock at the 
door, after the master shall have risen up and shut it to, and 
cry, Lord, Lord, open unto us, and to whom t lie Lord will 
say, " depart, ye workers of iniquity, 1 never knew you 
1 say, is it possible that such can ever be saved ? If so, 
then human speech is incapable of expressing any thing but 
salvation ; for such language is just as far from salvation as 
it can be. 

2. I quoted several passages in the second place to show 
certainly that God will punish man after death. As these 
were quoted on the first proposition, and as my time is run- 
ning near to a close, 1 shall simply refer to them. % Tim. 
4 : 1 . speaks of the judgment of the dead. Acts JO : 42, de- 
clares the same. ' The rich man and Lazarus were referred 
to for the same purpose. Rev. 21: o, was adduced on the 
same point, in connection with Rev. 20: 12. Some other 
passages were also quoted touching this point, all of which 
stand in full force, not being the least impaired bv anything 
said by Mr. M. 

Now. if the most clear and explicit language of the book 
of God can establish any proposition that Jesus Christ "shall 
judge the quick and dead " — thai "Christ was ordained of 
God to be the judge of quick and dead " — that " it is appointed 
unto men once to die. and after this the judgment" — that a 
*' man died and was buried ; and in hell he lilted up his eyes, 
being in torments ? * — that it is a ** doctrine of lies, and 
strengthens the hands of the wicked, that lie should not re- 
turn from his wicked way to promise him life" — that " the 
fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, 
and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolators, and all liars, 
shall have their part in the lake that burns with lire and 
brimstone; which is the second death,'* — that the dead, 
small an^d great, shall stand before God , * * * and be judged 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 



353 



judged out of those things written in the books, according 
tc tneir works." 

3. On the duration of punishment, I quoted Matt. 25 : 46> 
" These shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the 
righteous into life eternal." On this point, I showed that 
the same Greek word, aionion, which expresses the duration 
of punishment, also expresses duration of life, and that the 
life and punishment both belong to the same state. This 
Mr. M. admitted. I then proceeded to give a definition of 
the Greek word aio?iio?i, which was found to be "unlimited as 
to duration.,, This Mr. M. has attempted to meet in no way 
only to escape to aion in the place of aionion. But for this he 
has given no good reason. His course has been to assert 
that the two words mean the same, but for this assertion he 
has given no reason but his own bare assertion that the adjec- 
tive can have no other meaning than the noun ; but this is pro- 
ved false by the lexicons, which give different meanings to these 
words. But Greek lexicons are no authority compared with 
his bare assertion! But I relied not alone on the lexicons, but 
referred to Heb. 7: 16, 17, where Paul justifies himself for. 
saying Christ was made a priest "after the power of an endless 
life," by quoting the words of David — "Thou art a priest for] 
ever." In this passage he makes the words "endless" and 
"forever" the same in meaning. But here Mr. M. thought he 
saw where I had done the same in substance as he had done 
in going to another word, because the Greek word in this pas- 
sage is aiona and not aionion, but if he will lookmto his lex- 
icon he will see that aiona is defined with aionion, and conse- 
quently the definition is just the same, but he goes to another 
word with another definition. I am aware that it is hard to 
rob him of this his only attempt to escape, but truth requres 
that it should be done. I also have referred to 2 Cor. 4: 6, to 
show that Paul defines the things which are seen, temporal, and 
the things which are not seen, eternal. Then I contend that 
those temporal punishments that Mr. M. speaks of are not the 
punishments the Savior speaks of in my proof- text, for it is eter- 
nal punishment, and not tempora l This he has not deigned to 
notice, but has filled up his time, in telling you that I have 
only offered one proof-text. As I before observed, he has taken 
the position that the "eternal life" in Mat. 25: 46, is cotempo- 
rarv with the "everlasting punishment," and that both are 
23 



354 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



in this world, but he dare not say that eternal life will ever 
end. or that it is not endless. I have showed that the same 
word, in the lips of the same speaker, in the same sentence, 
is used to express the duration both of the life and punish- 
ment. This word must be used in the same in both places 
in this sentence beyond all dispute, and that it expresses the 
duration of the life, and that that life is endless, cannot be de- 
nied by any man living. Just so certain then as the dura- 
tion of the life mentioned in this passage is endless, the pun- 
ishment is endless. The very same word, then, that expresses 

duration of the life of the righteous also expresses the 
duration of the punishment of the wicked. Indeed the same 
word is used to express the duration of the existence of God, 
and that it does not mean endless here no man who has any 
regard for truth can affirm. The effort that Mr. M. attempted 
to make by showing that the same word is used sometimes in 
a limited sense, can be made relative to any word in human 
speech. The word endless is used in the scripture in 
a limited sense, but who would attempt to get its proper 
meaning from such a use? 

I then referred to the use of the words forever and ever, as 
found in Rev. In doing this, I showed that these words ex- 

ss the duration of the life of God, the life of Christ, and 
the praises of God with the reign of Christ. The only effort 
Mr. M. made hore was to try to show that the reign ot Christ 
■ would come to an end, and consequently that the word could 
not mean endless. But beyond all dispute, when it is applied 
to the duration of the life of God, it means endless. Still 
further, I showed from Isa. 9: 7, that " of the increase of 
his government there shall be no end " and the reason as- 
signed for this statement just below, is that he shall sit upon 
the " throne of David forever ." To this I will just add the 
words of Daniel, Dan. 7: 14: " His dominion is an ever- 
lasting dominion, which shall not ]mss away, and his king- 
dom that which shall not be destroyed." If this is to be re- 
lied on, there is an end to the gentleman's quibble. The 
same words then, in the same book, from the pen of the 
same man in reference to the same state, that the Spirit of 
God used to express the duration of the life of God, are used 
to express the duration of the punishment of the wicked. I 
ask again, then, by what rule does any man admit those 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 



355 



words to mean unlimited duration in ten places in the same 
book, in reference to the same state, used by the same man, 
and then deny that it has the same meaning in the three 
places where it applies to punishment? Certainly by no 
rule or law of language whatever, only a determination to 
have the discussion in a certain way. 

That the soul and body of man may be destroyed in hell 
after death, where the worm dieth not and the fire is not 
quenched, where he will suffer eternal punishment, and be 
tormented forever and ever, is just as certain as that the Bible 
is a revelation from God, Whoever shall be the miserable 
victims of this fierce vengeance of God, most certainly will 
be without any thing to ground a hope of escape upon. I ask, 
then, what language the Almighty could have used to express 
the duration of the punishment of the wicked that would 
have been more forcible than that to which I have referred? 
I do not know any way that endless punishment could have 
been expressed more clearly, than it is expressed in the Bible, 

Beloved neighbors, you have now heard us present what 
we have to say on this great question. You have heard Mr. 
M. acknowledge the superiority of the importance of know* 
ing it, if I am right, and you have heard him admit how 
much less the importance of knowing it, if he is right. The 
reason why he admits it to be so important to know it, if I 
am right, is that we may obey the gospel and thus escape 
punishment ; and on the other hand, the reason why it is of 
so little importance to know it, if he is right, is that it will 
not make any one any better if he does know it. 

You have seen the close places Mr. M. has been in, in this 
discussion : and that in many instances he would not ac- 
knowledge that he believed plain passages of scripture. In- 
deed, he could not, without giving up his theory. You must 
now decide for yourselves, and my prayer is, that you may 
decide in such a way as you will be satisfied in life, in death, 
and in the morning of the resurrection. 

The subjects we have discussed, have been before me 
some twelve years, and I know that I have looked at them 
with candor ; and look upon it as my duty, now that we are 
about to close the debate, to assure you that I am happy in 
thus having made this effort in defence of truth and right- 
eousness : and, although I have received the most insulting 



356 



THEOLOGICAL DISCISSION. 



language, I have tried to keep in the spirit of my master, 
and not return railing for railing. 

Gentlemen, moderators, you have my most grateful thanks 
for the respectful and dignified manner you have presided in 
this discussion. And you, my fellow-citizens, have my most 
sincere thanks for your patient attention. 

My prayer to the giver of all good is, that this discussion 
may be the means, under God, of enlightening mankind and 
promoting righteousness in the earth. To the great nan 
God, through Jesus Christ, be the honor and power everlast- 
ing. Amen. 



MR. MANFORD'S CLOSING REPLY. 



Ladies and Gentlemen : 

The gentleman tells us that he has introduced more th&n 
one proof-text. I again tell him, what every one in the con- 
gregation knows to be correct, that he has produced only one 
proof -text on the proposition before us to-day, and that is 
Matt. 25: 46. That is the only passage he has cited that re- 
lates to the duration of punishment, the subject of our present 
discussion. The other texts he has read say nothing about 
the duration of punishment, and therefore are not proof-texts. 
If his views of them all are correct, they would not come 
within a thousand miles of proving that any of mankind will 
suffer endless misery. It is perfect folly, then, to call them 
proof -texts. Every one knows that they are not. He prom- 
ised in the beginning to do the very best he could for his 
cause; and he thought he could do it ample justice, as he has 
studied it faithfully twelve years. His ardent and laborious 
studies by day and by night, for twelve long years, accom- 
panied by the laudable aspiration to do something great, has 
armed him, he thinks, with one evidence that the God of hea- 
ven will torment a portion of his own offspring, without mercy 
and without end! Without doubt the gentleman has done 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT 



357 



the best he could: and if he could have mustered one more 
proof of his darling theme, he would gladly have done so. 
You most not, therefore, blame this advocate of endless wo, 
for not doing better. But as the good Book is so barren of 
this principal item of Partialis*!), I hope the gentleman here- 
after will think and preach less of the devil and his kingdom, 
and more of Christ and his kingdom. The Bible is full of 
Christ and of heaven, but, according to Mr. Franklin, the 
eternal kingdom of darkness, as the doom of men, is only 
once spoken of. 

But the gentleman is more successful than St. Paul was, an 
Apostle of Christ, lie studied the Gospel some thirty years, 
and it is a fact, that he never spoke of hell but once, and then 
declared that it should be destroyed. If any one doubts this, 
let him read the Apostle's sermons and epistles, and he will 
be convinced that 1 speak the truth. Still he affirms that he 
had "not shunned to declare all the counsel of God. yt 'Acts 
20: 27. Perhaps Mr. F., when he shall have studied the 
"Revelation of God as long and as faithfully as St. Paul did, 
he will have learned that the doctrine of endless torments 
compose no part of God's counsel. 

e 'A little learning is a dangerous thing; 
Drink deqf, or taste not the Pierean spring.'' 

But 1 have already shown that my friend's sole proof-text 
falls far short of sustaining his proposition. Testimony on 
testimony has been presented, proving beyond the shadow of 
a doubt, that the word everlasting does not signify endless 
duration; and you all know how weak and contemptible have- 
been his quibbles: for it would be a prostitution of language 
and common sense, to call his insipid talk on that subject 
arguments. The course he has pursued on this subject is 
worthy only of his creed. 

He says, with effrontery truly astonishing, that I have 
-tried to escape discussion on the meaning of the Greek word 
aionion" rendered everlasting. He knows, as well as he 
knows I am now speaking, that there is not one word of truth 
iii that remark. I have proved, over and over, that the term 
everlasting does not mean endless duration. I proved this 
from Watts, Macknight. and others. In my last speech I 



358 



cited many passages from the Bible, demonstrating that the 
word signifies limited duration of time. Trying to escape ! 
Does the man think you are all dumb ? The gentleman says 
that lexicons define aion and aionion differently ;' but in that 
he is much mistaken. I will give the primary signification 
that several lexicons give those words : 

Donnegan. — Aion — -time . Aionion — long duration , 
Pickering-. — Aion — an age. Aionion — long duration. 
Schreveli.xs — Aion — an age. Aionion — long duration 
Hinks. — Aion- — a period of time. Aionion — lasting. 
Giles.— Aion — time. Aionion — lasting, 
Lutz. — Aion — an age. Aionion — durable. 
There, all these authors define those terms exactly alike. 
Their definitions vary only in words, not in meaning ; and 
not one of them gives endless duration as the proper mean- 
ing of either of those terms. 

He reiterates his stupid assertion, that a noun and the ad- 
jective derived from it, are two different words ! If he would 
give the science of grammar a little attention, he would be 
heartily ashamed of that assertion. • Every one who makes 
any justprentension to letters knows that an adjective is only 
a modification of a noun; the same used in another form. I 
sometimes think my ears deceive me when I understand him 
to assert that adjectives are not derived from nouns. Every 
school-boy and school-girl knows better than that. I can see 
some of them nodding assent to what I say. Dr. Franklin, 
you had better leave this pulpit, set at their feet, and learn 
of them. Open any grammar, and you wiil find it written, 
that "Adjectives are derived from nouns." As they are de- 
rived from nouns, they, of course, cret all their meaning from 
the nouns whence derived. For your own credit deny this 
no longer. 

It does seem to me that there can be no longer any doubt 
concerning the primary meaning of the word everlasting. 
with those whose minds are influenced by testimony, for that 
is all on one side — all proves that that word properly signiiies 
limited duration, not endless. 

He admits that the word everlasting is "frequently used in a 
limited sense." How does he-know it is not used in that sense 
in the passage before us — "these shall go away into everJast- 
ng punishment," I have proved that to be its signification 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 359 

in that text, from a variety of testimony, most of which he has 
paid no attention to. But he thinks because the Bible speaks of 
the "everlasting Father," everlasting sometimes signifies end- 
less duration. If it does bear that meaning in such con- 
nection, it does not follow that it means endless when applied 
to punishment. But I do not rely on that ambiguous term 
to prove the endless existence of God, but on expressions that 
admit of no limitation, For example — -Paul says: "And 
changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image 
made like to corruptible men, and to beasts and to birds, and 
creeping things." Rom. 1: 29. Here the nature of God is 
contrasted with the nature of earthly beings. They are cor- 
ruptible, but he is incorruptible. "Of old thou has laid the 
foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy 
hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: Yea, all 
of them shall wax old like a garment ; as a vesture shall thou 
change them, and they shall change : but thou art the same, 
and thy years shall have no end." Ps. 102: 27. Here the 
existence and character of the heavens and earth are con- 
trasted with those of the Almighty. They shall "change" and 
"wax old," "but thou art the same ; "they shall perish, but 
thou shalt endure;" "thy years shall have no end." By such 
language do the scriptures teach the unchangability and end- 
less existence of God. But the Bible no where says that the 
sufferings of men will have no end, but it does say that the 
"wickedness of the wicked shall come to an end," and con- 
sequently their sufferings also will .end. Neither should we 
rely on the term in question to prove the endless existence of 
the soul. 

The bible employs other terms to teach that truth, "An 
inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, and that fadeth not 
away, reserved in heaven for you." 1 Peter 1: 4. But no 
where do the sacred writers assert that the life of the damned 
in hell will be incorruptible, and that their miseries will not 
fade away. These terms, applied to the existence of God and 
to the life of the soul, admit of no limitation . But this can- 
not be said of the word everlasting, and therefore it being 
applied to beings that are endless in their nature, is no evi- 
Ience at all that the word means endless. Mr. Franklin 
ought to be logician enough to know this. 

O o C5 

In regard to "everlasting life," I have proved, I think to the 



360 



THEOLOGICAL PISCTJSSION , 



Satisfaction of all present, that it is the life of the gospel 
kingdom, of the gospel age, and is consequntly enjoyed on 
earth. Jesus says, "he that beiieveth on me hath everlasting 
life." On the other hand the punishment spoken of in Matt. 
25: 46, is the terrible tribulation and fiery indignation that 
heaven has awarded to the house of Israel. They have suf- 
fered those judgments many ages, but we are assured that 
"when the fulness of the Gentiles shall have come in all Israel 
shall be saved.'' Then the punishment will end. 

Yes, endless punishment is impossible. God cannot in- 
flict it, for he is Love. It is said to be impossible for God to 
lie, because he is a God of truth ; so it is impossible for him 
to torment a portion of his own offspring without mere}" and 
without end, because he is a God of Love. A devifmighi do 
so, but the Creator of the universe cannot. 

Retells us what he has said to-day about "this generation" 
in Matthew 24. Now, be it known, that there has nothing 
been said to-day on that subject. Day before yesterday, 
when we- were discussing the first proposition, that phrase was 
under consideration, and he was driven from every position 
he took on it by the force of testimony. He feels sore about 
the way he was 4 - used up," and I refer you to what was 
said on that subject then as a sufficient refutation of his Last 
assertion. 

All his trash about my contending that God is the author 
of sin I have stopped to consider once or twice, and shall 
spend no more time on that subject. His creed makes God 
the author of endless sinning and endless suffering. Ac- 
cording to it, God made the prison of damnation he contends 
for, created its devils and sustains their lives, and will plunge 
into that den of every abomination a large part of mankind, 
where they must sin and suffer endlessly ! He will not per- 
mit the devils or the damned souls to cease sinning and learn 
to do well ; but they must sin and suffer as long as God's 
throne shall stand ! If this is not blasphemy, what is it ? 
And if any characters deserve all the horrors of such a hell 
it is those who thus slander the God of Heaven. May God 
forgive Mr. Franklin for thus falsely charging him ! Father, 
forgive him, for he knows not what he does ! To cap the 
climax of absurdities, he has the boldness to say that endur- 
ing, endless punishment would not be an evil ! Good heavens I 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT , 



361 



What can be an evil, then? If endless sinning, endless weep- 
ing, and endless suffering would not be an evil, what is or 
can be an e¥il ? He is the first man that ever I heard say 
that endless punishment would not be an evil. He must be 
insane! 

"Endless wo has a good tendency!" What an absurdity! 
I never thought or admitted such a falsity. A belief in that 
cruel dogma has caused more sin and suffering than all other 
causes combined. It is the parent of countless abominations, 
being an infinite abomination itself. 

"Had I a hundred mouths, a hundred tongues, 
A voice of brass, and adamantine lungs ; 
Not half its frightful scenes could I disclose, 
Repoat its crimes, or count its dreadful woes." 

It is built on the worst of passions — selfishness, retaliation, 
cruelty, revenge ; and it fosters those evil passions, and a 
great many more, in the human heart. When the sun covers 
the earth with a mantle of darkness ; when ice scalds and 
fire freezes ; when copious showers parch the ground, then 
may the doctrine of endless sin and damnation produce love 
and virtue. If it is true of course we should know it, and 
for the same reason that we should know that a serpent lays 
in- our path, or that there are murderers in our house. If 
Universalism is true, we should know it, for the same reason 
that we should know that dear friends are alive, when we sup- 
posed they were dead, or that a prodigal has returned, when 
we supposed he was past redemption ; or that great blessings 
are in store for us here, when we thought that tears and sor- 
row were our only doom: 

Mr. Franklin informed us that part of his first proof-text 
was, 4i Are there few that shall be saved '?" and he told us 
that he got this from the " infallible oracles of God." I will 
inform the gentleman that that passage is taken from the fal- 
lible oracles of Partialism — from the same volume where 
the following scraps may be found : " If you die in your 
sins, where God and his Christ are you cannot come. God 
out of Christ is a consuming fire. As the tree falls so it 
shall lie. No self-murderer shall enter the kingdom of God. 
As death leaves us, so judgment finds us. There is no 
change after death. Total depravity, triune God, trinity, 
Original sin, endless hell, eternal hell, endless suffering, ua- 



'36 2 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



pardonable sin, endless punishment, endless misery, endless 
death, eternal death, death that never dies." 

The question in the Bible is, " Are there few that he 
saved 1 " not " shall be ; " and we all know that according 
to the scriptures, christians enjoy a present salvation, — are 
now saved. " By grace ye are saved." " To us who are 
-saved." and similar expressions, abound in the Bible. But 
Mr. F. can think of nothing tut a salvation from an endless 
hell, an angry God, and the clutches of an almighty devil. 
Well, let us see how he got along with the balance of his 
first proof-text. He done wonders according to his account ; 
and well he might after such a hopeful beginning. He told 
us that the " kingdom " out of which some would be thrust 
was heaven; I replied, that if he was correct, the wicked 
Jews — the persecuters and murderers of Christ, would go to 
heaven in all their sins, and after remaining there awhile, 
would be cast out ; for Jesus says, " There shall be weeping 
and gnashing of teeth, when ye (the wicked Jews) shall see 
Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the 
kingdom of God, and ye yourselves thrust out." Luke 15 : 
28. Listen, O earth, and hear his reply. " They would 
stand outside the door and from that position be thrust out of 
the kingdom If! " Was not that a bright idea ! But how in 
the world could the Jews be thrust out of the kingdom if 
they were never in it ? I took the ground, as every reasona- 
ble person must, that the kingdom was not heaven, but that 
kingdom of which the Bible so frequently speaks, that is 
erected in the earth. JThe Jews were once in that kingdom, 
but it was taken from them and given to the Gentiles, and 
the door is now shut to the ancient people of God. Mr. F. 
flatly contradicts the Bible, for he says the kingdom was 
never taken from the Jews, and that they can all now enter 
it ! The Bible teaches exactly the reverse. 

He says he quoted several passages that speak of the con- 
ditions on which heaven is to be obtained. I showed that 
not one of them refers to the future state, but to the privi- 
leges and blessings of the gospel kingdom. He even con- 
tended, according to his last speech, that immortal life is 
conditional ! He cited these words, i; Seek for glory, honor, 
immortality*' Rom. 2. He contended that this refers to 
the future state, and that no one could be immortal there 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 



363 



without seeking for it here! This is his faith according to 
his last speech : The soul of no one is naturally immortal, 
and no one will ever be immortal without first seeking for it. 
Consequently, all who do not seek for immortality will con- 
tinue mortal, and therefore will not suffer endlessly. If the 
gentleman believes what he said on that subject, he is a dis- 
believer in endless punishment. He contends that all who 
seek for immortality will be saved, and none others, and 
hence it follows from his premises, that the balance of man 
kind, including infants, idiots, pagans, all the wicked, who do 
not seek for it will not be immortal but mortal, and conse- 
quently will not live endlessly in heaven or hell, but be anni- 
hilated. 1 charge Mr. Franklin with believing in the doctrine 
of annihilation. Perhaps he believed in endless punishment 
when this discussion commenced ; but he has now renounced 
it and advocates the annihilation of part of mankind. He is 
progressing, for it would be far better to annihilate those that 
cannot be saved, than to torment them without relief and 
without end. I hope Mr. Franklin will grow in grace, till 
he come to a knowledge of the whole truth. 

In regard to the word immortality, I have showed that the 
original is several times translated sincerity ; and that it 
bears that signification in this passage ; but he was careful 
not to notice this in his recapitulation. If he had done so, it 
would have saved many words ; but then it would have upset 
all he wanted to say. 

In Mr. F.'s last speech, we had a first rate specimen of 
scrap preaching. He reminded me of the gentleman who 
tried to prove from the Bible that it was right to commit self- 
murder. Said he. %i It is said that Judas went and hanged 
himself; and in another place it is written. • Go thou and do 
likewise ' — therefore, we are commanded to kill ourselves. " 
These quotations just as clearly prove that self-murder is a 
divine command, as do those half sentences from the Bible 
that Mr. Franklin put together, from all parts of the 
scriptures, prove the endless damnation of half of man- 
kind. If I may be allowed the liberty he takes with 
the Bible. I can prove it is right to commit every abomination 
ever thought of : but this is not the way to read or undsrstand 
that blessed volume, and those who take such liberties with 
tt. shamefully abuse it. I repeat, not one of those passages 



364 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



he half quotes, relate, in any way whatever, to the proposi- 
tion before us. 

* His boasting of what he he has done, reminds me of a 
certain phrenological lecturer. He said. " There are but 
three truly great men in the United States. One of them is 
Daniel W ebster of Boston ; the second is Henry Clay of Ken- 
tucky, and modesty forbids that I mention the third." So 
Mr. F. don't like to tell us in so many words that he is a 
great man, but he certainly is an astonishing genius if he 
did half that he boasted of having accomplished. 

He told us what he had done with Matt. 25, 46 ; but he 
forgot to add that he totally failed to show that that passage 
sustains his proposition, and that that was his only proof-text. 
He says, I " attempted to meet him in no way to escape to 
axon in the place of aionios." There is not only no sense 
or syntax in this sentence, but the idea intended is false in 
every particular. He can have no regard for a truthful rep- 
utation, so it seems to me, or he would not have made that 
false assertion. Every one of you know that I proved, 

1 . That aionion signifies limited duration ; because it is 
derived from a noun bearing that meaning. 

2. Because many lexicons give it that definition. 

3. Because several orthodox writers so define it. 

4. Because that is its common meaning in the Bible. 

I dwelt on each of these evidences, and yet Mr. Franklin 
says I said nothing about that word, but escaped to another ! 
He will wish that sentence had never dropped from his lips. 
But he went to aiona to get the meaning of aionion, and hence 
did exactly what he condemned me for doing ! He says 
they are both one word, but no more so than aion and aionion 
are. as he would not deny if he knew more about language. 
As he has simply repeated his old assertion about forever in 
Heb. 7, without replying to what I have said, I refer you 
to my remarks on that subject. If he could have replied he 
undoubtedly would have done so. 

All his reasoning in favor of everlasting, meaning endless 
duration, in Math. 25, 1 will apply to the levitical priesthood, 
for that is called an everlasting priesthood, and prove just as 
clearly that it is in force now, and will be to all eternity, as 
he has proved that punishment will be endless. I will quote 
his words with the necessary alteration to suit the subject. 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 



36£ 



The priesthood is thus spoken of in Exod. 40, 15. ^ For 
this anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood.' 9 
" Here the Almighty affirms that the Levitical priesthood should 
be an everlasting priesthood, and everlasting is taken from 
the same original word that eternal is, in Matthew 25, 46, 
where Jesus says some should have " eternal life." Now it 
follows that if everlasting, when applied to that priesthood, 
means limited duration, it must bear the very same significa- 
tion when applied to life in Math. 25. The same word is 
use to express the duration of the priesthood and the lift. 
This word must be use in the same sense in both places, be- 
yond all dispute ; and that it expresses the duration of the 
life, and that that life is endless, cannot be denied by any 
living man. Just so certain then, as the duration of the life 
in Matt, is endless, the priesthood is also endless. The very 
same word then, that expresses the duration of the life, also 
expresses the duration of the priesthood. Indeed the same 
word is used to express the duration of the existance of God, 
and that it does not mean endless here, no man who has any 
regard for truth will affirm. 

•'The offset that Mr. Manford attempts to make by showing 
that the same word is used sometimes in a limited sense, can 
be made relative to any word in human speech. The word 
endless is used in the Scriptures in a limited sense ; but who 
would attempt to get its proper meaning from such a use ? — 
To show that everlasting means endless when applied te the 
old priesthood, I referred to the use of the words forever and 
ever, as found in Revelations. In doing this I showed that 
those words express the duration of the life of God, the life 
of Christ, and the reign of Christ. The only effort Mr. M. 
made here was to try to show that the reign of Christ would 
come to an end, and consequently that forever and everlast- 
ing do not mean endless, and therefore, that the Mosaic priest- 
hood should come to an end, although God affirmed it was 
everlasting. I will just add the words of Daniel, Dan. 7:14. 
"His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not 
pass away, and his kingdom that shall not be destroyed." If 
this is to be relied on, there is an end to the gentleman's quib- 
ble. The same word, then, in the same book, that the spirit 
of God used to express the duration of the old priesthood, is 
also used to express the duration of the life of God, and 
24 



366 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



therefore if the priesthood will end the existence of God will 
also end ! I defy mortal man to avoid the conclusion. I ask 
by what rule does any man admit that a word in one place 
means unlimited duration, and in the other limited duration? 
Certainly by no rule or law of language whatever ; but it is 
only a determination to have the decision in a certain way. 
All who deny that the Mosaic priesthood is abolished disbe- 
lieve the Bible, the plain declaration of the Almighty, and 
are infidels at heart, for he has informed us in the most pos- 
itive terms that it should be an everlasting priesthood; and 
God does not say one thing and mean another. I hope Mr. 
Manford will repent of his sins, no longer charge God with 
deception, and spend the balance of his days in counteract- 
ing his former teaching, as some men have done before him. 
But if he should be obstinate and persist in his wicked course 
till death, he will surely find at the judgment seat that he 
was greatly mistaken, that everlasting mean endless when 
applied to the priesthood of Aaron as well as when applied to 
the life in Matt. 25." There, 1 appeal to every one if Mr. 
Franklin's reasoning in favor of everlasting means endless 
duration when applied to punishment, does not apply 
with equal force to that word when applied to the old priest- 
hood. They are the same words in both places. If Mr. F. 
is right concerning everlasting, Christ was an impostor, be- 
cause he professed to abolish the everlasting priesthood of 
Aaron, which he did not do, if everk sting signifies endless 
duration. I can prove that Jonah is now in the whale, that 
the hills and mountains will stand endlessly, that the Jewish 
temple is now standing on Mount Zion, that the servant 
will serve his master through all time and eternity, that the 
Jews are now in Judea and will remain there to all eternity, 
that the Jewish passover should be observed now and hence- 
forth through all coming time, by the very same process of 
reasoning that Mr. Franklin has tried to prove that punish- 
ment will be endless. But everlasting, he admits, means 
limited duration when applied to the priesthood, temple, hills, 
&c. ; and so do I ; and I also contend it means the same 
when applied to punishment ; and Mr. Franklin would do 
the same did not His creed interdict it. 

A few words and I will close. There are some almost in- 
finite differences between the faith of my friend and the faith 



ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 



S67 



of which I am an humble advocate. The one is contrary to 
the better feelings of our nature, and seems to the reasoning 
mind an infinite absurdity. The other fulfils the most en- 
larged desires of the purest and most benevolent souls, and 
fully reconciles all the ways of God to man; removing all 
doubts which the present existence of evil may have thrown 
around the goodness of God. The one engenders supersti- 
tion, bigotry, and intolerance, and fills the mind with gloomy 
douqts, sad forebodings, and destructive fears. The other 
has no affinity with superstition and cannot exist with it. It 
teaches that all men are brethren, and that all have a com- 
mon Father ; hence, it is entirely opposed to everything like 
bigotry or intolerance ; it dispels all doubts, bids all our fore- 
bodings cease, and effectually destroys every tormenting fear. 
The one has had for its strongest advocates the fiercest des- 
pots, the most savage and cruel tyrants, and the most furious 
and unrelenting bigots that have ever disgraced the earth. 
The other has never had any such votaries, and could not 
have from the nature of the doctrine itself. The one teaches : 
First, Either that God h,ad a bad and cruel design in crea- 
ting man, and that that design will most certainly be accom- 
plished. Or secondly, That He had a benevolent design, but 
will not be able to accomplish it. Or thirdly, That He had no 
design whatever. The other teaches that God had a great 
and good design in creating man, and that His designs cannot 
be frustrated ; for "He doeth his will in the army of Heaven, 
and among the inhabitants of the earth, and none can stay 
his hand, or say unto Him, What doest Thou V- And what 
"His soul desireth, even that He doeth." 

Of one it may be truly said that it were better if it should 
prove false than true! Of the other this could not be said 
with any semblance of truth. The one fosters and cherishes 
the spirit of partiality, cruelty, and retaliation. The other 
inculcates the spirit of universal love, kindness, and forgive- 
ness, as its crowning principles. 

The one sharpens the sting of death. The other takes 
away the sting of death. 

The one acknowledges Christ to be the Savior only of those 
that believe. The other that He is the "Savior of all men, 
especially of those that believe;" and that Christ could not 
be an "especial" Savior, unless he was the Savior of all. — 



368 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



The one teaches that endless sighs and groans shall forever 
ascend from the caverns of horror and the regions of black 
despair. The other teaches that "every creature which is in 
Heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as 
are in the sea, and all that are in them," shall he "heard say- 
ing, Blessing and honor, and glory, and power, be unto Him 
that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb forever and 
forever." 

The one teaches that the Devil shall be king forever, and 
that nine-tenths of all rational intelligences shall be his sub- 
jects. The other teaches that the Devil and all his works 
shall be destroyed, and that God, who is Love, shall be "all 
in all." 

The one runs the line of endless separation between fami- 
lies and friends, fathers and sons, mothers and daughters. 
The other teaches that all shall meet again — that the links of 
affection shall again be united in one golden chain, which 
shall bind all hearts in one universal bond of love. 

The one teaches that Christ will never be able to accom- 
plish his mission. The other teaches that "He shall see of 
the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied" It teaches 
also that Christ shall reign "until he hath put all enemies un- 
der his feet," and that "the last enemy that shall be destroy- 
ed is death." "Then shall come to pass the saying, O death 
where is thy sting; O grave where is thy victory ?" Then 
shall all the ransomed of the Lord return and come unto 
heavenly Zion with songs and everlasting joys upon their 
heads ; they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and 
sighing shall flee away. AMEN. 




.V 



.4* 




C ' 



^0 J 



1* 



» X * A 




. 



IV ^ ^ ^^f|b> > 



,0' 



%, -11 



4 



,0o. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 
„ Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
> Treatment Date: May 2006 

, PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



7J\W r m 



r 

loo. 



» Jt \ 



J? 




